Pontificia Universidad Católica Del Peru: Facultad de Ciencias E Ingenieria

PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DEL PERU
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS E INGENIERIA
“DIAGNÓSTICO Y EVALUACIÓN DE LA RELACIÓN ENTRE EL TIPO

ESTRUCTURAL Y LA INTEGRACIÓN DE LOS CONTRATISTAS Y
SUBCONTRATISTAS CON EL NIVEL DE PRODUCTIVIDAD EN OBRAS DE
CONSTRUCCIÓN”
Tesis para optar el Título Profesional de

INGENIERO CIVIL
CRISTHIAN F. CAÑA RAMOS

PEDRO A. ESCAJADILLO IRING
Lima, Agosto 2006

Tesis de productividad, subcontratos y tipos de estructura RESUMEN EJECUTIVO
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO
La presente investigación tiene por objetivos el determinar la evolución de la

productividad respecto a la mano de obra en Lima Metropolitana y relacionarla con el
tipo de estructura del proyecto y con el grado de integración entre los contratistas y
subcontratistas.
Para ello se realizaron mediciones en 26 obras a nivel de Lima Metropolitana, en las

cuales se calificó el trabajo de los obreros del sector construcción en trabajo
productivo (TP), trabajo contributorio (TC) y trabajo no contributorio (TNC). Además, se
obtuvo información adicional mediante encuestas y entrevistas al personal que labora
en la obra, tanto del área técnica – administrativa como el personal obrero y los
subcontratistas.
Con fines comparativos, se utilizó el criterio de evaluación del trabajo de la tesis

predecesora del año 2000, sin embargo se presenta también una nueva forma de
evaluación, la cual podría ser utilizada para futuras investigaciones.
En cuanto al tema de subcontratos, se presenta un esquema de clasificación de la

relación que tienen con los contratistas. En éste se contemplan aspectos como la
calidad del contrato firmado entre ambas partes, la cantidad de proyectos que llevan
desarrollando juntos, la intensidad de control que ejerce el contratista al subcontratista,
entre otros. Luego de clasificar los subcontratos de cada obra medida, se procede a
compararlos con el tiempo productivo obtenido en el análisis anterior y concluir si
existe relación entre ambos valores. Se termina éste análisis con el listado de los
problemas más frecuentes que impiden una buena integración entre ambas partes.
De manera similar, cada obra se clasificó según el tipo de estructura, utilizando para
ello la Norma Peruana Sismorresistente. Se pone énfasis en que el tipo de estructura
define el proceso constructivo del proyecto, haciendo que ciertas prácticas, materiales
y tecnologías sean más utilizados en un tipo de estructura que en otro.
Se relaciona el tipo de estructura con el indicador de productividad para obtener cual
de los sistemas estructurales ofrece mayores ventajas en cuanto a uso adecuado de la
Tesis de productividad, subcontratos y tipos de estructura RESUMEN EJECUTIVO
mano de obra y, además, también se compara con un indicador basado en la

velocidad por metro cuadrado de techo construido por día.
Luego, se concluye con la identificación de los problemas que han ocasionado los
resultados obtenidos respecto a los de hace cinco años; se recomiendan acciones
para mejorar en un futuro respecto a la productividad, a los subcontratos y al tipo de
estructura.
Finalmente, se establecen pautas y propuestas para orientar el trabajo de

investigaciones posteriores.
Este trabajo está dedicado a todos aquellos
familiares y amigos que me brindaron su apoyo.
Cristhian
Esta investigación es el fruto del apoyo

constante de mi familia y mi enamorada.
A todos ellos, mi gratitud y amor eternos.
Pedro A.
Tesis de productividad, subcontratos y tipos de estructura INDICE
INDICE
“Diagnóstico y evaluación de la evaluación de la relación entre el tipo estructural
y la integración de los contratistas y subcontratistas con el nivel de
productividad en obras de construcción”
I. MEMORIA DESCRIPTIVA
i. PRESENTACION
1. Introducción........................................................................................ Pág. 01
2. Alcances.............................................................................................. Pág. 03
3. Objetivos ............................................................................................. Pág. 04
4. Hipótesis ............................................................................................. Pág. 05
ii. ESTADO DEL ARTE

1. Introducción........................................................................................ Pág. 06
2. Estudio de tiempos y movimientos
2.1. Estudio de métodos ................................................................. Pág. 07
2.2. Medición del trabajo ................................................................. Pág. 07
3. Lean Production
3.1. Lean Construction .................................................................... Pág. 09
3.2. La filosofía de producción Transformación – Flujo – Valor ....... Pág. 10
3.3. Last Planner ............................................................................. Pág. 12
3.4. Look Ahead Planning ............................................................... Pág. 14
3.5. Porcentaje de Planificación Completa (PPC) ........................... Pág. 15
4. Subcontratos en la construcción
4.1. Integración vertical ................................................................... Pág. 16
4.2. Partnering ................................................................................ Pág. 18
4.3. Subcontratos ............................................................................ Pág. 21
4.4. Acercamiento a la colaboración, lean construction y
Comunicación ........................................................................... Pág. 23
5. Tipo de estructuras
5.1. Constructability (Constructabilidad) ........................................... Pág. 24
i
5.2. Procesos constructivos y sistemas estructurales....................... Pág. 26
iii. METODOLOGIA DEL TRABAJO

1. Muestra analizada............................................................................. Pág. 29
2. Definición de las herramientas ........................................................ Pág. 29
2.1. Nivel General de actividad de obra (NGO) ............................... Pág. 29
2.2. Formato de Identificación de Obra (FIO) .................................. Pág. 29
2.3. Encuesta al personal técnico – administrativo de obra.............. Pág. 30
2.4. Encuesta al personal obrero .................................................... Pág. 30
2.5. Entrevista a subcontratistas y proveedores .............................. Pág. 30
3. Criterios y procedimientos de la toma de datos............................. Pág. 30
3.1. Del Tipo de tipo de trabajo ....................................................... Pág. 30
3.2. De las Encuestas ..................................................................... Pág. 33
3.3. De la Entrevistas ...................................................................... Pág. 34
4. Evaluación de la información obtenida
4.1. Etapa de diagnóstico individual ................................................ Pág. 34
4.2. Etapa de diagnóstico integral ................................................... Pág. 35
4.3. Etapa de conclusiones y recomendaciones .............................. Pág. 35
iv. ANALISIS DE RESULTADOS

1. Parámetros de clasificación................................................................ Pág. 36
1.1. Según grado de integración de los subcontratos ...................... Pág. 36
1.2. Según el tipo de estructura ...................................................... Pág. 39
2. Presentación de análisis de resultados ............................................ Pág. 40
2.1. Relación Productividad del año 2000 al 2005 ........................... Pág. 40
2.2. Relación Productividad con el tipo de estructura ...................... Pág. 50
2.3. Relación entre el nivel de integración........................................ Pág. 56
2.4. Relación entre la productividad y el porcentaje de obra sub_
Contratada ................................................................................ Pág. 62
v. IDENTIFICACION Y DESCRIPCION DE LAS PÉRDIDAS ENCONTRADAS

1. Respecto a la productividad .............................................................. Pág. 64
2. Respecto a tipo de estructura............................................................. Pág. 66
3. Respecto a nivel de integración de los subcontratos....................... Pág. 67
ii
vi. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIÓN

1. Respecto a tipo de estructura............................................................. Pág. 70
2. Respecto a nivel de integración de los subcontratos....................... Pág. 72
3. Propuesta para investigaciones futuras ............................................ Pág. 75
II. BIBLIOGRAFIA ............................................................................................ Pág. 77
iii
Tesis de productividad, subcontratos y tipos de estructura MEMORIA DESCRIPTIVA
I MEMORIA DESCRIPTIVA
i. PRESENTACIÓN
1. Introducción
Actualmente, debido al apoyo brindado por el estado a través de facilidades de

financiamiento como el programa de MIVIVIENDA, el mercado en el sector de la
construcción se ha incrementado.
Dicho auge trae consigo una mayor competencia entre las empresas
constructoras, las cuales deben generar la oferta más barata sin sacrificar su
utilidad. Para ello cuentan con dos caminos, siendo el primero el sacrificar rubros
como la seguridad, calidad, entre otros; y obligar que sus trabajadores (técnicos,
administrativos, subcontratistas, etc) disminuyan sus costos.
El otro camino es la aplicación de nuevas tecnologíasi con creatividad y de forma
adecuada que les permitan destacar entre la competencia y así establecer un
liderazgo en el mercado.
Suponiendo que el camino escogido por las empresas es el segundo, y motivados

por un trabajo llevado a cabo en el año 2000, es que decidimos hacer realidad este
proyecto cuya finalidad es la de obtener un “indicador de productividad” (IP) que
nos permita calificar la situación actual de la construcción en Lima, además de
establecer la relación que mantiene éste con el tipo de estructura del proyecto y
con el nivel de integración de los subcontratos.
El indicador escogido presenta dos características fundamentales:

La primera es que se enfoca en el insumo Mano de Obra. Esto se debe a que de
todos los recursos de los que hace uso la construcción (mano de obra, materiales,
herramientas entre otros), la mano de obra es la que presenta mayor variabilidad
ya que se ve influenciada por diversos factores, tales como sicológicos, climáticos,
i
Daft, R. L. define tecnología como las herramientas, técnicas, maquinarias y acciones (tales como
métodos de trabajo y administrativos) usados para transformar aquellas entradas organizacionales
(organizational inputs) en salidas (outputs).
1
el modo como son organizados, etcétera. Por el contrario los otros recursos
empleados, siempre y cuando sean bien controlados, no van a variar de forma
significativa ya que básicamente dependen de un metrado el cual se obtiene
directamente de los planos o del campo y no va a sufrir variación a menos que
esté mal realizado (Por dar un ejemplo, los metros cúbicos de concreto a utilizar
van a ser los mismos, ya sea que se lleve a cabo la obra en 1 mes como en 1
año).
El término productividad, según Koontzii, se define como la relación producto –

insumo en un periodo de tiempo dado y con la debida consideración de calidad. Lo
cual implica que cuando nos referimos a la productividad, la estamos asociando
implícitamente a un insumo dado. En nuestro caso dicho insumo es la mano de
obra y la producción de ésta va a depender de la actividad que se está analizando.
La segunda característica es que el indicador que se presenta no nos brinda la

productividad, tal y como se define líneas arriba, de forma cuantitativa, ya que no
incluye de manera directa en su cálculo la producción del grupo humano
involucrado. Lo que se pretende es que, a través de un estudio de tiempos, se
distinga la cantidad de éste que se dedica realmente a actividades que agregan
valor. De este modo se puede evaluar de forma indirecta la productividad bajo el
precepto de que se obtiene mayor producción si se dedica la mayor cantidad del
tiempo a actividades productivas.
Según un documento publicado por Sergio Maturana, Luis Alarcón y Mladen

Vrsaloviciii: “Existen distintos métodos para la medición de la productividad,
muchos de los cuales están basados en datos cuantitativos. Cuando sea posible,
los estándares debieran basarse en hechos y datos antes que en la intuición y la
subjetividad. Sin embargo, cuando hay falta de tradición en la medición de
operaciones, la información cuantitativa para la medición de la productividad puede
no estar disponible. En ese caso, la medición de la productividad de forma
subjetiva es una posible solución.”; por lo tanto se acepta el uso del IP como
medida subjetiva de la productividad de la mano de obra.
ii
Administración (Harold Koontz) – Capítulo 1: Administración: Ciencia, teoría y práctica
iii
Achieving collaboration in the construction supply Chain: An Onsite subcontractors’ Evaluation
Methodolody
2
El IP se considera útil, básicamente por los siguientes motivos:
• Permite hacer un diagnóstico de la situación actual de la construcción en Lima,

el cual a su vez nos permite compararnos con otras realidades.
• Contribuye a establecer una comparación entre los resultados obtenidos hace

5 años. Esto último es de vital importancia ya que, tal y como se menciona en
el Rethinking Construction Reportiv, la medición efectiva del desempeño cumple
un rol fundamental en todo proceso de mejora.
• Sirve como punto de comparación para investigaciones futuras.
• Permite identificar puntos débiles a reforzar a fin de no cometer los mismos

errores en el futuro.
2. Alcances
El alcance de la presente investigación está delimitado por los parámetros que se

listan a continuación:
- Área de investigación:
El campo de acción de nuestra investigación es Lima Metropolitana, ubicada en la
provincia y departamento de Lima, Perú.
- Objeto de Estudio:
Se realiza el estudio en obras de construcción de Viviendas Multifamiliares que
estén en la etapa de casco estructural, es decir, durante la construcción de los
elementos estructurales de la edificación.
iv
Este reporte fue entregado por The Task Force dirigida por John Egan al Adjunto del Primer Ministro
(Deputy Prime Minister), John Prescott en referencia al mejoramiento de la calidad y la eficiencia de la
construcción en El Reino Unido, para reafirmar los ímpetus de cambio y para que la industria se vuelva
más responsable de modo de satisfacer las necesidades de los clientes.
3
Cabe resaltar que las empresas constructoras de dichos proyectos deben ser
formalmente constituidas, excluyendo del análisis los casos de autoconstrucción,
obras sin licencia municipal, etc.
- Enfoque del Estudio:

Dentro de los tres recursos empleados en la construcción (mano de obra, equipos
y herramientas; y materiales), el presente estudio se centrará en analizar la
productividad de la mano de obra a través de un indicador basado en un estudio
de tiempos el cual denominamos Nivel General de Actividad de Obra (NGO). Dicho
indicador se definirá más adelante en el presente informe.
- Tolerancia del Estudio:

Se espera obtener resultados estadísticamente válidos y representativos de Lima
Metropolitana, con un error menor al 5%.
3. Objetivos
Nuestros objetivos son los siguientes:
1. Obtener un resultado representativo de la productividad a partir de un

indicador. Esto es a nivel de Lima Metropolitana.
2. Comparar la productividad actual con la obtenida en el estudio del 2000.
3. Reconocer la situación de la subcontratación en el Perú y comparar la

influencia de ello en la productividad.
4. Reconocer la influencia del tipo de estructura en la productividad del proyecto y

determinar la óptima.
4
4. Hipótesis
De acuerdo a nuestros objetivos, nos planteamos las siguientes hipótesis:
1. Nuestra productividad ha mejorado con respecto a hace cinco años.
2. El tipo de estructura influye en la productividad, siendo la más productiva

aquella cuyos elementos resistentes son muros delgados de concreto armado.
3. El grado de integración de los subcontratos influye en la productividad, siendo

aquellos que tienen un grado alto de integración, los que tienen mayor
productividad.
5
ii. ESTADO DEL ARTE
1. INTRODUCCION
El modo de construcción tradicional presenta varios paradigmas que limitan las

ganancias de los inversionistas en ese sector, quiénes no necesariamente incurren
en pérdidas si no que dejan de ganar buenas cantidades de dinero.
Para poder aprovechar esos montos, surgen nuevas tendencias e ideologías que
lo que buscan es romper con los paradigmas que limitan la calidad, la seguridad y
que promueven un sistema en donde hacer perder al otro es la consigna por
excelencia.
Dado que consideramos a la construcción como una industria, es importante
ofrecer a su cliente un producto de buena calidad, brindar seguridad a sus
empleados, establecer vínculos de negocios con sus subcontratistas de modo que
ambos ganen, y estudiar y optimizar procesos para obtener mayores ganancias.
Las próximas hojas de este acápite buscan orientarnos y explicarnos las
tendencias que han hecho posible la ruptura de tales paradigmas y que han sido
tomadas como base de la investigación que luego se presenta.
2. ESTUDIO DE TIEMPOS Y MOVIMIENTOS
El estudio del trabajo es el examen sistemático de los métodos para realizar

actividades con el fin de mejorar la utilización eficaz de los recursos y de
establecer normas de rendimiento con respecto a las actividades que se están
realizando.
Por tanto, el estudio del trabajo tiene por objeto examinar de qué manera se está
realizando una actividad, simplificar o modificar su método operativo para reducir el
trabajo innecesario o excesivo, o el uso antieconómico de recursos, y fijar el
tiempo normal para la realización de esa actividad. En otras palabras, se busca
rechazar el desperdicio en todas sus formas – de materiales, tiempo, esfuerzo o
dotes humanas – y no aceptar sin discusión que las cosas de hagan de cierto
modo “porque siempre se hicieron así”.
6
El estudio del trabajo comprende varias técnicas, y en especial el estudio de

métodos y la medición del trabajo.
2.1. Estudio de métodos
También conocido como estudio de movimientos, es el registro y examen crítico

sistemáticos de los modos de realizar actividades, con el fin de efectuar mejoras,
tales como:
• Encontrar el mejor método de trabajo.
• Fomentar en todos los empleados la toma de conciencia sobre los
movimientos.
• Desarrollar herramientas, dispositivos y auxiliares de producción
económicos y eficientes.
• Ayudar en la selección de nuevas máquinas y equipo.
• Capacitar a los empleados nuevos en el método preferido.
• Reducir esfuerzos y costos.
2.2. Medición del trabajo
O estudio de tiempos, es la aplicación de técnicas para determinar el tiempo que

invierte un trabajador calificado en llevar a cabo una tarea según una norma de
rendimiento preestablecida.
Este estudio se relaciona con la investigación de cualquier tiempo improductivo.
En un principio, se plantea que el trabajo en sí consta de dos partes. La primera

parte es el contenido básico de trabajo, la cual fija el tiempo mínimo irreducible que
se necesita teóricamente para obtener una unidad de producción.
La segunda parte es el contenido de trabajo suplementario, es decir, el tiempo
adicional al teórico que sucede debido a deficiencias en el diseño o en la
especificación del producto o de sus partes, o a la utilización inadecuada de
materiales, o debido a la influencia de los recursos humanos.
Es la segunda parte la que debe ser estudiada y minimizada para disminuir el
tiempo de producción y aumentar la productividad.
7
3. LEAN PRODUCTION
“Lean Production” es una filosofía de la industria manufacturera que puede

entenderse como una nueva forma de diseñar las operaciones optimizando los
sistemas de producción para alcanzar los requerimientos de los clientes.
Fue desarrollada en la compañía japonesa Toyota, por el ingeniero Taichi Ohnoi a

finales de la década de los cincuenta, influenciado por los criterios de W. Edwards
Demingii de Total Quality Managementiii (TQM - Gestión de Calidad Total).
Ohno planteó objetivos concretos para el diseño de su sistema de producción,
producir un carro para los requerimientos específicos de un cliente y entregarlo
instantáneamente sin el uso de inventarios.
Orientados a alcanzar estos objetivos, la filosofía de Lean Production plantea

medidas como la reducción de pérdidas, las cuales están definidas como
cualquier actividad que no contribuya a la generación de valor para el cliente
“El Lean Production está orientado al diseño de un sistema de producción que

pueda entregar un producto hecho a la medida, de forma instantánea luego de un
pedido, sin mantener inventarios intermedios.” (Gregory Howelliv – 1999)
En resumen, el Lean Production busca:

- Eliminar todo aquello que no produce valor para el cliente final.
- Organizar la producción como un flujo continuo.
i
Taichi Ohno, pionero de la implantación del Justo a Tiempo (JAT) en Toyota Motors. Nació en
Manchuria en 1912. Se graduó en 1932 en el departamento de tecnología mecánica del Instituto Técnico
de Nagoya y entró a trabajar en la planta de hilados y tejidos Toyota. En 1962 lo nombran director
general de la planta principal y el JAT se extiende a los procesos de fundación y forjado.
ii
W. Edwards Deming (1900 – 1993) estadístico y asesor en gestión de la calidad, de origen
norteamericano, es conocido principalmente porque ayudó a revitalizar la industria japonesa en los años
posteriores a la II Guerra. En la década de 1980 fue un consultor muy solicitado por la industria
Norteamericana.
iii
Calidad Total (Total Quality Managment – TQM), Gestión estratégica para introducir a una conciencia
de calidad en todos los procesos organizacionales. Es asegurar la calidad a través de métodos estadísticos.
TQM apunta a hacer las cosas bien desde el comienzo, en vez de arreglar los problemas después de su
aparición. TQM tiene el objetivo de mejorar la producción y reducir las pérdidas.
iv
Gregory Howell (USA), Co-fundador y Director Gerente de Lean Construction Institute, USA. Socio
del Lean Project Consulting, Ketchum Idazo, USA.
8
- Perfeccionar el producto y crear un flujo de trabajo confiable, a través de la

disminución de la variabilidad en el flujo, la distribución adecuada de la
información y la descentralización de la toma de decisiones.
- Alcanzar la perfección: entregando bajo pedido un producto que satisfaga los
requerimientos del cliente y evitando el inventario.
3.1. Lean Construction
“Lean Construction” o “Construcción Sin Pérdidas” es una filosofía de gestión

de la producción, que tiene por objetivo el aumento de la productividad
teniendo su enfoque en satisfacer las necesidades de los clientes. Ha sido
desarrollada como resultado de la aplicación de ideas del Lean Production a la
construcción.
Según el Lean Construction Institutev (LCI), Lean Construction se extiende

sobre los objetivos del Lean Production, los cuales son maximizar el valor para
el cliente y minimizar las pérdidas. Para ello define técnicas específicas que
son aplicadas en un nuevo proceso de entrega de proyectos. Dentro de estas
técnicas podemos mencionar:
• El producto y el proceso de producción son diseñados de manera
conjunta para definir y alcanzar, de una mejor manera, los objetivos del
cliente.
• El trabajo es estructurado a través del proceso de diseño del proyecto
para maximizar el valor y reducir las pérdidas.
• Los esfuerzos para manejar y mejorar los rendimientos específicos son
dirigidos a la mejora del rendimiento total del proyecto, debido a que
este último logra ser más importante que la reducción del costo o el
aumento de la velocidad en alguna actividad específica.
• El concepto de control es redefinido como “hacer que las cosas pasen”,
en lugar de un “monitoreo de resultados”. El rendimiento de los
sistemas de planeamiento y control son medidos y mejorados.
v
El Lean Construction Institute es una corporación sin fines de lucro que fue fundada en Agosto de 1997.
Sus miembros están dedicados a realizar investigaciones para desarrollar conocimientos acerca de
proyectos basados en la gestión de la producción, diseño, ingeniería y construcción.
9
La teoría y método del Lean Construction tienen su base en dos propuestas. La

primera propuesta, de Lauri Kokelavi, señala que la construcción debe ser una
producción basada en el concepto Transformación – Flujo – Valor (TFV). La
segunda, cuyos autores son Glenn Ballardvii y Gregory Howellviii, introduce el
método de control de la producción del último planificador (Last Planner).
3.2. La filosofía de producción Transformación-Flujo-Valor
En la gestión de la construcción a partir del siglo XX se han considerado y

puesto en práctica tres conceptos de producción: la transformación, el flujo y el
valor.
El primer concepto considera a la producción como la transformación a partir
de la entrada de insumos (input) hacia la salida de productos (output) tras la
finalización del proceso. Dicho proceso se descompone a su vez en otras
transformaciones, hasta llegar a las transformaciones elementales, las cuales
deben ser realizadas de la manera más eficiente posible para que el proceso
global también sea eficiente.
Este modelo ha sido el más usado para analizar la producción en la

construcción y se esquematiza de la siguiente manera:
Cuadro Nº1 : Esquema de la producción en la construcción
vi
Laura Koskela profesor finlandés, quién estableció los principios de producción en construcción,
tomando como referencia la teoría Lean Production, basada en el modelo de producción japonés.
vii
Glenn Ballard (USA), Profesor de la Universidad de California, Berkeley, Director de Investigaciones
del Lean Construction Institute, y Director en Strategic Project Solutions, Inc. Creador del sistema Last
Planner para control de producción.
viii
Gregory Howell (USA), Co-fundador y Director Gerente del Lean Construction Institute, USA. Socio
del Lean Project Consulting, Ketchum Idazo, USA.
10
El segundo concepto es el modelo de flujos en el cual la producción es

concebida como un flujo de procesos, materiales e información, donde
adicionalmente a la transformación también se considera la existencia de
esperas, inspecciones, transportes y trabajo rehecho.
TRANSPORTE ESPERAS PROCESO A
Cuadro Nº2 : Esquema del concepto de flujos
El tercer concepto considera la producción como un proceso para identificar las

necesidades del cliente. Estas necesidades se trasladan a un diseño del
producto y son alcanzadas a través de la reestructuración del mismo.
NECESIDAD
DISEÑO DE
PRODUCTO
CLIENTE
PRODUCCIÓN
VALOR
Cuadro Nº3 : Esquema de la producción como generadora de valor
11
La nueva filosofía de producción Transformación-Flujo-Valor, desarrollada por

Ph.D. Lauri Koskela en 1992, integra los tres conceptos de producción antes
descritos dentro de las siguientes características:
• Reducción de las actividades que no agregan valor para el cliente.
• Incremento del valor de la producción, a través de una consideración
sistemática de los requerimientos del cliente.
• Reducción de la variabilidad en los procesos de producción.
• Reducción de tiempos en los ciclos de producción.
• Simplificación de los procesos de producción mediante la reducción de
pasos, partes y relaciones.
• Incremento de la flexibilidad del producto terminado.
• Incremento de la transparencia de los procesos.
• Enfoque en el control de procesos complejos.
• Introducción de nuevos procesos para la mejora continúa.
• Balance entre la optimización de los flujos de los procesos y la
optimización de las conversiones.
• Comparaciones periódicas dentro y fuera de la empresa
(benchmarking).
3.3. Last Planner
El desarrollo de todo proyecto, contempla la realización de una planificación

maestra basada en supuestos y condiciones ideales, en base a las cuales se
elabora el presupuesto de obra. Al momento que la construcción del proyecto
inicia, surgen imprevistos y variaciones de las condiciones iniciales asumidas,
las cuales generan retrasos y costos adicionales si no son detectados y
controlados a tiempo.
Ante esta situación surge el sistema de control de la producción del último

planificador (Last Planner) que fue desarrollado por Ph.D. Glenn Ballard y P.E.
M.S.C.E. Greg Howell durante la segunda mitad de la década de los noventas.
El objetivo principal de este sistema es mejorar la confiabilidad en la
planificación, por medio de un adecuado control del flujo de la producción.
Donde el concepto de control es considerado como “la ejecución de acciones
12
necesarias para que la planificación se cumpla”, a diferencia del concepto

tradicional, en donde se entendía al control como el “monitoreo de los
resultados”.
Last Planner hace referencia a la persona o grupo de personas, que se

encarga de la definición final y asignación del trabajo. Esta planificación tiene la
particularidad de ser utilizada para la asignación de tareas y no para la
generación de alguna planificación posterior. Para definir esta asignación del
trabajo, tal como en el método tradicional, se toma en cuenta la planificación
maestra, considerando además la capacidad de producción real de la cual se
dispone. Pero para poder definir adecuadamente esta capacidad de producción
real, se debe considerar la variabilidad de los procesos, lo cual genera
incertidumbre sobre el conocimiento de la situación en la que se encontrará el
proyecto luego de un largo periodo de tiempo.
Por ello la tarea del último planificador se realiza como una planificación a corto
plazo, por lo general una semana, en la cual la incertidumbre es menor.
Esta teoría se puede ver de una mejor manera en la siguiente ilustración:
Objetivo
del
Proyecto
Planificación del
Información Requisitos
Proyecto
Puede Proceso del Último

Hacer Hará
Planificador
Recursos Lo que se
Producción
Hizo
Cuadro Nº4 : Esquema del Last Planner
13
3.4. Look Ahead Planning
Look Ahead Planning (LAP) es una herramienta de planificación de jerarquía

media, basada en la planificación maestra, en la cual se genera información
para la realización de una planificación a corto plazo, que ayuda al control de la
asignación de trabajo.
Como producto de la aplicación del LAP se obtiene el Look Ahead Schedule

que es un cronograma comúnmente utilizado en la industria de la construcción
el cual típicamente resalta lo que se debe realizar durante el periodo analizado.
Según Ph.D. Glenn Ballard el proceso del Look Ahead aplicado dentro del
marco del sistema del último planificador permite que este cumpla las
siguientes funciones:
• Moldear la secuencia del flujo de trabajo.
• Emparejar el flujo de trabajo con la capacidad.
• Descomponer la planificación maestra en paquetes de actividades de

trabajo y operaciones.
• Mantener un inventario de trabajo listo para realizarse.
• Actualizar y revisar los cronogramas de mayor jerarquía según sea

necesario.
Las funciones anteriormente descritas son alcanzadas a través de la

realización de los siguientes procesos:
• Definición de actividades: Las actividades definidas en la planificación

maestra se descomponen identificando las asignaciones, las cuales
son actividades de un tamaño apropiado para ser incluidas en un plan
de trabajo semanal.
14
• Análisis de restricciones: Para cada una de las asignaciones

identificadas se realiza el análisis de restricciones en el cual se listan los
recursos y restricciones en general necesarios para que la asignación
este lista para realizarse.
• Asignación del trabajo según el criterio de “jalar” (pull): se realiza en

función a la condición de la planificación, cuando se requiere,
emparejando el trabajo que se debe de realizar con el trabajo que se
puede realizar.
3.5. Porcentaje de Planificación Completa (PPC)
El control dentro de la teoría del Lean Construction se ha redefinido como la

acción de “asegurarse que las cosas sucedan”, lo que implica ejecutar las
acciones descritas anteriormente en las herramientas Last Planner y Look
Ahead Planning. Este control se ejerce con anterioridad a la ejecución con el
objetivo de aumentar la confiabilidad de las asignaciones.
De forma adicional al control planteado anteriormente por Ph.D. Glenn Ballard,

se propone dentro del sistema Last Planner una herramienta de “control
tradicional” denominada Porcentaje de Planificación Completa (PPC). El PPC
es una herramienta que ayuda al control de la producción; el cual evalúa la
planificación. A diferencia de las herramientas anteriores, esta se realiza en un
momento posterior a la ejecución.
Esta herramienta es calculada dividiendo el número de actividades

completadas entre el número total de actividades planeadas, expresado como
porcentaje. Luego de la ejecución de las actividades en campo, se genera un
registro en el cual se indica que actividades planificadas no han sido cumplidas,
indicando también los motivos por los cuales ha sucedido el incumplimiento.
El PPC es una herramienta de útil ayuda a la identificación de restricciones,

que facilita el mejoramiento continuo de la confiabilidad de la planificación y
como consecuencia el desempeño del proyecto.
15
4. SUBCONTRATOS EN LA CONSTRUCCION
En nuestro medio muchas de las empresas que se encuentran desarrollando

proyectos de edificaciones han optado por la opción de subcontratar actividades ya
sea para asegurar costos o porque el subcontratista cuenta con mano de obra
especializada para llevar a cabo una determinada labor.
Esta tendencia no sólo se produce aquí ya que en países vecinos como Brasil y
Chile se ha venido repitiendo el mismo patrón durantes los últimos años, tendencia
que viene aumentando cada vez más.
Para poder entender las ventajas y desventajas que se producen al subcontratar,
es necesario definir algunos términos, para lo cual nos basaremos en un
documento redactado por Julio Y. Shimizu y Francisco F. Cardosoix.
4.1. Integración Vertical
Integración vertical involucra una variedad de decisiones referentes a si la

compañía debe producir los servicios que requiere por ella misma o, por el
contrario, debe adquirirlos de alguna otra empresa.
La principal cuestión es hasta que punto la empresa es directamente
responsable de producir todo lo que necesita. Así, si la compañía decide
adquirir algunos productos de otra empresa para elaborar los suyos, lo ideal
sería lograr el manejo eficiente de dicha relación con la otra empresa.
Las principales ventajas competitivas atribuidas a la integración vertical

incluyen:
- La mejora de las actividades de marketing y de tecnología inteligente.
- Mayores controles sobre el entorno.
ix
“Subcontracting and Cooperation Network in Building Construction: A Literature Rewiew” Expuesto
en Agosto del 2002 en Gramado, Brazil por motivo de la conferencia anual organizada por el IGLC
(Internacional Group for Lean Construction).
16
- Mayor eficiencia en la transferencia de la información. Este beneficio es

importante destacar ya que el poseer información implica un gran poder
tanto para negociar como para la gestión de inventarios.
- Disminución de costos por el crecimiento en la curva de aprendizaje: los

gastos de asesoramiento técnico, por ejemplo, disminuyen en el tiempo
como consecuencia de las habilidades adquiridas por los productores.
Además, los costos de transacción son menores por el mayor conocimiento
de la negociación y la reducción de los incumplimientos contractuales.
Aunque todos estos beneficios pueden proporcionar una ventaja competitiva,

esta ventaja no tiene el carácter de permanente.
Aspectos negativos de la existencia de integración vertical son los
requerimientos de capital, desequilibrio en los rendimientos, reducción de la
flexibilidad o menor especialización en las actividades subcontratadas.
El desarrollo adecuado de las estrategias de integración, según Krippachne

(1992), requiere de las siguientes acciones:
• Evitar el desarrollo interno de aquellas capacidades que pueden ser

satisfechas por agentes externos.
• Desarrollar buenas relaciones con los grupos de subcontratistas y

proveedores con los que se trabaja.
• Apelar a otras empresas precalificadas para monitorear las condiciones

de los precios del mercado y tecnología.
• Reducir la cantidad de trabajo realizado con recursos propios,

desintegrándose en cierto grado, principalmente en aquellas actividades
con poco margen de ganancia.
17
• Tener presente que cualquiera sea la estrategia adoptada, ésta debe

ser constantemente revisada.
4.2. Partnering
Es una relación a largo plazo en la que las partes involucradas realizan una
inversión significativa con el fin de obtener algún beneficio o alguna ventaja
competitiva conjunta.
Mientras que el lean se enfoca en el aseguramiento de la confiabilidad en los
flujos, el partnering se enfoca en forjar un mayor grado de confianza. Confianza es
aquella actitud humana que aflora cuando existe confiabilidad.
El CIIx (Conctruction Industry Institute) ofrece la siguiente definición de partnering:

“Partnering es una relación a largo plazo entre dos o más organizaciones con el
propósito de alcanzar objetivos específicos de negocio, por medio de la
maximización de la efectividad de los recursos de los participantes. Esto requiere
cambiar la forma tradicional en que se llevan las relaciones entre participantes de
un proyecto por una cultura compartida que no toma en cuenta las fronteras
organizacionales. Dicha relación se basa en confianza, dedicación hacia metas
comunes, y comprensión de las expectativas y valores individuales. Los beneficios
esperados incluyen el aumento de la eficiencia y la efectividad en temas de costos,
fomentar las oportunidades para la innovación, y la mejora continua de la calidad
de los productos y de los servicios.”
Según Bresnen y Marshall (2000), partnering apunta a reducir la adversalidad, la

cual parece ser típico en la industria y la causante de disipar intentos previos de
establecer mejores relaciones de integración y cooperación entre las partes
contractuales.
Partnering es una relación entre organizaciones en donde:
x
CII fue fundada en 1983 para mejorar la efectividad de costos (cost effectiveness) de las industrias más
grandes de las naciones. Los miembros, quienes representan a distintas empresas y contratistas,
consideran que muchos de los problemas que limitan la efectividad de costos son comunes, y que el
mayor beneficio se puede obtener en un ambiente de cooperación con beneficios compartidos por toda la
industria de la construcción.
18
• Todas las partes buscan soluciones a los problemas que sean mutuamente
beneficiosas al final del proyecto.
• Confianza y honestidad son una parte normal de la relación. El intercambio

de ideas y problemas sin temor a represión fomenta la rápida resolución de
dificultades y la mejora de la eficiencia organizacional.
• Existe un ambiente que promueve la disminución de costos y el aumento

de la utilidad, lo cual es muy sano para la relación.
• Se fomenta la innovación. Se debe de cambiar la mentalidad “No es mi

idea, entonces no es buena” por “Todos nos beneficiamos de la mejora en
la eficiencia y de la innovación”:
• Cada participante es conciente de las necesidades y preocupaciones de los

otros partidos. No se toman acciones sin considerar quién es afectado y
como es afectado.
• Se mejora el desempeño total.
El cambio alcanzado a través de la aplicación de partnering atravesará por

diversas fases antes de alcanzar su objetivo final de colaboración. Estas etapas de
cambio son las siguientes:
Colaboración
Cooperación
Reconocimiento
de necesidades
Aptitud
Aptitud cooperativa
adversaria
Cuadro Nº5 : Esquema de las etapas del partening
19
El mayor beneficio del partnering se va a lograr cuando todos los involucrados en

un proyecto (incluyendo a los proyectistas, los contratistas, subcontratistas,
proveedores y hasta al cliente y los agentes reguladores del proyecto) no sólo
cooperen sino que colaboren. Colaboración involucra reconocer las necesidades y
objetivos de todos los involucrados.
Los libros “Trusting the Teamxi” y “Seven Pillars of Partneringxii” demuestran que
donde se aplica partnering a lo largo de varios proyectos se obtiene hasta un 30%
de ahorro, y que en algunos casos se puede obtener 50 % de reducción en costos
y hasta 80% en ahorro en tiempo.
A continuación se detallan una serie de factores para llevar a cabo una relación de
partnering exitosa:
• Desarrollo de la confianza
• Trabajo en equipo
• Compromiso
• La necesidad de forjar compromisos más sólidos
• Recalcar la importancia del individuo
• El movimiento estratégico del personal clave
• La necesidad de una comunicación abierta y flexible
• Evaluación continúa.
Entre las ventajas con las que se cuenta producto de la aplicación del partnering
se pueden mencionar: reducción de costos, disminución del tiempo de entrega del
proyecto, mejora en la calidad de la construcción, desarrollo de una mejor
atmósfera de trabajo y fomento del aprendizaje organizacional.
En la literatura desarrollada referente al tema se encuentran 2 tipos de partnering,

clasificadas según la duración de la cooperación entre participantes. Los tipos
distinguidos son los siguientes:
• Project Partnering (Partnering por proyecto) es aquella relación que se produce

durante la ejecución de un proyecto. Si las empresas relacionadas no vuelven a
xi
Bennett, J. & Jayes
xii
John Bennett and Sarah Jayes
20
trabajar en alguna otra ocasión, todo el aprendizaje obtenido durante el proyecto

se pierde. Hay que tener en cuenta que este tipo de alianza por proyecto puede
derivar en un tipo de alianza estratégica.
• Strategic Partnering (Partnering Estratégico) es una relación con un alto grado

de cooperación entre los participantes que se extiende a largo plazo a través de
varios proyectos. En este caso lo aprendido como equipo permite que se obtengan
mayores beneficios ya que la información obtenida cumple su ciclo y retroalimenta
el sistema.
4.3. Subcontratos
La industria de la construcción depende de subcontratistas y de proveedores de

materiales y equipos de construcción. Dado el enfoque tradicional que se aplica en
la industria de la construcción, los subcontratistas se encuentran en una posición
de subordinación frente a las contratistas. De este modo, la relación entre ambos
suele ser tensa y adversaria.
Según Beardworth (1988), el subcontrato ha sido presentado como una alternativa
organizacional para algunas actividades económicas. Dado que las empresas se
están descentralizando cada vez más, el subcontrato se asienta con mayor
intensidad en la organización de trabajo.
Para Pagnani (1989) el subcontrato es una relación económica – legal entre dos
agentes, en la cual la característica fundamental son la substitución y la
subordinación. Por substitución se entiende que el subcontratista asume el riesgo
técnico y financiero de llevar a cabo las operaciones, en lugar del contratista. La
subordinación implica que el subcontratista debe seguir la dirección dada por el
contratista, radicando en ello su dependencia.
Veltz (2000) recalca que las empresas no necesitan tener el control de toda ruta de
valor, pudiendo dar a terceros aquellas actividades no estratégicas con la finalidad
de reducir costos.
Tomado de un estudio realizado por Shimizu y Cardosa en el año 2002 en Brasil,
se presenta a continuación el siguiente cuadro en donde se indican algunos
aspectos de los subcontratos en edificaciones:
21
ASPECTOS COMENTARIOS
Flexibilidad La subcontratación parece ser una respuesta a las incertidumbre del mercado
Calidad
La subcontratación, por un lado, puede promover la calidad de un producto porque usa mano de obra
especializada y, por otro lado, puede empeorarla porque conlleva a problemas de control y
coordinación.
Costo
El costo directo disminuye, mientras que los costos de transacción xiiiaumentan. El costo directo es
menor porque la subcontratación elimina el mantenimiento del equipo y la subutilización de la mano de
obra. Los costos de transacción aumentan porque cada nueva negociación involucra proposiciones de
los subcontratistas.
Productividad
La subcontratación tiende a unir al trabajador con la firma subcontratista. Esto resulta en una mayor
productividad en la mano de obra debido a la continuidad y al aprendizaje. Fácil acceso a equipos
especializados y constante capacitación también elevan la productividad.
Controles Controlar la calidad del trabajo es difícil, debido a la alta cantidad de organizaciones independientes en
el sitio.
Planeamiento
La intensiva subcontratación de la mano de obra hace difícil el proceso de planeamiento. Peor aún, los
conflictos de intereses pueden intervenir negativamente con la programación de actividades.
Tecnología
La inestabilidad del mercado conlleva a las firmas contratistas a no establecer acuerdos estables con
los subcontratistas, impidiendo la transferencia de tecnologías.
Capacitación
El contratista tiende a derivar la responsabilidad de la capacitación a los subcontratistas, pero
generalmente ellos no son aptos para llevarla a cabo, debido a problemas financieros y el tiempo
insuficiente para entrenar.
Seguridad
La responsabilidad final de la seguridad recae en la compañía contratista, así como también la
implementación de un programa de seguridad y la supervisión del subcontratista. El desinterés del
contratista en invertir en programas de seguridad para trabajadores no permanentes y desconocidos, y
la falta de familiaridad de los trabajadores con el ambiente de trabajo empeoran el problema.
Consumo de
materiales Los subcontratistas pueden aumentar el consumo de materiales, ya que tienden a finalizar el trabajo tan
rápido como sea posible, sin controlar el uso de los materiales.
Adaptado del texto "Subcontrating and cooperation network in building construction: a literature review"
Tabla Nº1 : Principales aspectos de los Subcontratos
Según Welling y Kamann (2001) la industria de la construcción se caracteriza por

ser de comportamiento oportunista y por la falta de integración vertical. Esto
conlleva a que la relación entre contratista y subcontratistas sea tensa y adversa,
en donde se desarrolla una tendencia denominada de suma cero, en donde una de
las partes gana a expensas de la otra.
xiii
Son aquellos costos, distintos del precio del dinero, en que se incurre tanto antes, durante y después de
que se compra un bien o un servicio. El costo de la información, de la negociación y de la decisión, de la
verificación de que se cumplan los acuerdos establecidos son algunos de los más importantes costos de
transacción.
Algunos asumen que la información y otros costos de transacción son cero. Pero la verdad es que el
beneficio de la entidad con la que negociamos debe ser lo suficientemente grande como para cubrir el
costo de transacción que asume.
22
Según un estudio realizado por Dainty et al (2001) y publicado posteriormente en

un documento realizado por Sergio Maturana, Luis Alarcón y Mladen Vraslovic en
el año 2004, se identificaron algunos puntos considerados por los subcontratistas
como barreras para la integración:
1 Asuntos relacionados con el costo: debido a la tendencia competitiva

basada simplemente en el precio, se ha generado una relación adversa que
se ve reflejada en problemas de pagos.
2 Asuntos relacionados con la programación y el tiempo: tales como creación

de falsas expectativas por parte del contratista y programaciones irreales.
3 Asuntos relacionados con la calidad de la información: tales como una

deficiente calidad de la información así como una administración
inadecuada por parte del contratista.
4 Asuntos relacionadas con la actitud, tales como la arrogancia por parte del
contratista, exclusión del subcontratista en la parte inicial del proyecto, falta
de premios por un buen desempeño, prácticas de administración de campo
deficientes y falta de comprensión de los problemas de los subcontratistas.
4.4. Acercamiento a la colaboración, Lean Construction y

Comunicación
Dado que el acercamiento al lean construction apunta a la reducción de perdidas y

al mismo tiempo a la generación de valor al proceso constructivo, y que las
iniciativas para la aplicación del Supply Chain Managementxiv consideran métodos
como Partnering, es un hecho que la eficiente aplicación del lean construction va a
depender en gran medida del grado de compromiso de las empresas contratistas
por disminuir el costo de transacción a través de una administración adecuada de
sus subcontratos.
xiv
Es la gestión de toda la cadena de valor agregado, desde el proveedor de manufactura hasta el
Distribuidor y el comprador final. Tiene tres objetivos: Reducir el inventario, incrementar la velocidad de
transacción a través del intercambio de información en tiempo real, y el incremento de las ventas
alcanzando los requerimientos del cliente de forma más eficiente.
23
Cuando se implementa un acercamiento colaborativo, la coordinación debe ser

alcanzada a través de la comunicación. Esta comunicación ha sido definida por
March y Simon (1958) como “comunicación por medio de la retroalimentación”.
Vrijhoer et al (2001) describe cómo la comunicación en las organizaciones puede
ser entendida desde dos puntos de vista: la perspectiva de la información, que
implica el intercambio de hechos, opiniones y descripciones; y la perspectiva
organizacional, que incluye nociones de obligación, responsabilidad, acciones que
fomenten la comunicación, etc.
5. TIPO DE ESTRUCTURA
En el presente documento se realizará una investigación acerca de la relación de

la productividad con el tipo de estructura.
Sin embargo, es necesario despejar la primera duda que surge al juntar ambos
temas: ¿Es posible comparar la productividad, valor obtenido durante la
construcción del proyecto, con el tipo de estructura, el cual es definido con el
Ingeniero Estructural en la etapa de diseño del proyecto?
La respuesta, como debe imaginarse, es afirmativa. Se puede comparar la
productividad con el tipo de estructura; pero no con los planos hechos por el
Ingeniero Estructural, si no con el procedimiento constructivo asociado al tipo de
estructura que se le ha dado al proyecto.
Por lo tanto, se definirá el concepto de constructabilidad, el cual debe aplicarse

desde la concepción del proyecto; seguido de una explicación más honda de la
relación de los procesos constructivos con el tipo de estructura.
5.1. Constructability (Constructabilidad)
Según la filosofía del Lean Construction, existe una metodología basada en la

retroalimentación que favorece a la productividad desde los inicios del proyecto, es
decir, desde la preparación de los planos de arquitectura.
Esta metodología consiste en la aplicación de las experiencias y conocimientos de

construcción adquiridos durante los proyectos pasados, los cuales deben ser
24
usados de forma óptima en la planificación, en el diseño, en las adquisiciones y en

el manejo de las operaciones de construcción; aplicando así lo que el Construction
Industry Institute (CII) definió como “Constructability” (Constructabilidad).
La aplicación de la Constructabilidad trae como consecuencias prácticas, las que
podemos citar a continuación:
- Los proveedores y subcontratistas participan durante la etapa de diseño.
- La experiencia en proyectos terminados alimenta a los proyectos

siguientes.
- La calidad es fundamental en el proceso de diseño. Los defectos deben ser

subsanados antes de iniciarse los trabajos de construcción.
- Los diseñadores trabajan junto a los otros participantes en el proceso del

proyecto. Ellos deben entender mejor el proceso constructivo y cómo sus
habilidades creativas y analíticas pueden ayudar a mejorarlo, mediante sus
diseños.
- Los diseñadores consideran todo el costo de vida incluyendo los costos de

consumo de energía, mantenimiento y resanes; los cuales también inciden
en el proyecto.
- Los clientes también aceptan sus responsabilidades para el diseño efectivo.

Es común que presionen a los proyectistas para que puedan tener su
producto incluso antes del tiempo establecido.
La aplicación de la constructabilidad se puede esquematizar de la siguiente manera:
25
P
R
O FACTIBILIDAD
D
U
C
T
I DISEñO
V
I
D
CONSTRUCTABILIDAD
A ABASTECIMIENTO
D
CONSTRUCCION
ETAPAS DEL PROYECTO
Cuadro Nº6 : Esquema del Concepto de Constructabilidad
Por ejemplo, al momento de preparar el diseño estructural aplicando el concepto de

constructabilidad, se debería poner énfasis en los siguientes puntos:
- Considerar la distribución y sentido de las losas aligeradas o macizas, a fin de

facilitar los cortes de vaciado.
- Coordinar con los ingenieros de las otras especialidades a fin de no generar

congestionamiento de acero, tuberías, etc.; o para considerar las pérdidas de área
efectiva en los elementos estructurales debido a la presencia de las tuberías
5.2. Procesos constructivos y Sistemas Estructurales
La Norma Peruana clasifica a las edificaciones según los materiales usados y el

sistema de estructuración sismorresistente predominante en cada dirección.
Para la actual investigación nos hemos basado en la clasificación de los sistemas

estructurales de dicha norma y hemos asociado cada subclase al procedimiento
constructivo común a cada sistema. Cabe resaltar que no se ha considerado el tipo
de cimentación de la estructura (zapatas aisladas, combinadas, platea de
26
cimentación, etc.) ni el diafragma rígido común a la edificación (losas aligeradas,

macizas, armadas en dos sentidos, etc.).
Por lo tanto, tenemos:
A. Albañilería armada o confinada

La albañilería confinada es aquella reforzada con elementos de concreto
armado en todo su perímetro, vaciado posteriormente a la construcción de la
albañilería. Básicamente, se coloca primero el acero en las columnas de
confinamiento, se realiza el levantamiento del muro de ladrillo King Kong luego
de vaciados los cimientos corridos, hasta llegar al fondo de la viga de
confinamiento. Luego se encofra con madera las columnas de confinamiento
(debido a la poca densidad de columnas en este tipo de proyecto), y se realiza
el vaciado de las columnas, normalmente con concreto hecho en obra. La viga
de confinamiento se arma, encofra y vacía monolíticamente con el techo.
La albañilería armada es aquella reforzada interiormente con varillas de acero
distribuidas vertical y horizontalmente e integrada mediante concreto líquido
(grout), de tal manera que los diferentes componentes actúen conjuntamente
para resistir los esfuerzos.
B. Pórticos
Es el sistema estructural basado en columnas y vigas de concreto armado. La
función estructural es cumplida casi en su totalidad por las columnas de dichos
pórticos.
Las secciones de las columnas son mayores que las columnas de
confinamiento, por lo tanto se emplea tanto encofrado de madera como de
acero, dependiendo de la densidad de columnas. El concreto puede ser hecho
en obra como premezclado.
Una vez finalizado el desencofrado de los elementos estructurales, se puede
levantar muros de separación o tabiques, los cuales son de ladrillo pandereta,
por lo general.
C. Sistema dual
Es aquel que combina pórticos y muros de concreto (placas). Las acciones
27
sísmicas son resistidas, en su mayoría, por los muros de concreto; mientras

que los pórticos toman alrededor del 25% del cortante sísmico de la base de la
edificación.
Este sistema involucra placas y columnas, de modo que puede llegar a ser
recomendable el uso de encofrados metálicos, más no estrictamente necesaria.
El uso de concreto premezclado o hecho en obra depende de la secuencia
constructiva programada por el ingeniero responsable de la obra.
D. Muros estructurales
Los muros estructurales o placas son elementos de concreto armado de
mayores dimensiones que una columna. Se dice que es un sistema de Muros
estructurales, cuando estos toman más del 80% del cortante sísmico en la base
de la edificación.
En cuanto a proceso constructivo, es muy similar al anterior.
E. Muros de ductilidad limitada

Sistema en el cual todos los muros son portantes y de concreto armado, lo cual
permite que tengan bajos espesores.
Actualmente se emplea en edificios de construcción masiva, en los cuales el
encofrado metálico y el concreto premezclado son los insumos utilizados por
excelencia.
Dependiendo del tipo de encofrado metálico, se puede realizar el vaciado
monolítico de la estructura (muros y losa) o se puede seguir la secuencia
común, es decir, primero el vaciado de muros y luego el de losas.
28
iii. METODOLOGIA DEL TRABAJO
En esta sección se describen las herramientas empleadas y los criterios de

clasificación de las actividades. Es importante señalar que el criterio empleado en esta
tesis difiere del empleado hace 5 años, motivo por el cual la toma de datos se hizo de
dos maneras: de la forma como se detalla en este capítulo y de la forma como se
realizó en el 2000 con el fin de poder realizar la comparación.
1. MUESTRA ANALIZADA
En un principio, y ante la incertidumbre de los resultados a obtener, se demostró

que serían necesarias 50 obras para nuestro análisis. Sin embargo, de acuerdo a
los resultados obtenidos, se determinó que con 26 obras teníamos un resultado
con un 95% de confiabilidad y un error menor al 5%. La justificación a esta
afirmación se encuentra en el Anexo 01.
2. DEFINICION DE LAS HERRAMIENTAS
Se usaron las siguientes herramientas:
2.1. Nivel general de actividad de obra (NGO)

Es un indicador que representa el nivel de productividad del personal de la obra en
general. Éste indicador especifica la ocupación del tiempo de los trabajadores de
toda la obra en promedio, clasificando el tipo de trabajo en productivo (TP),
contributorio (TC) y no contributorio (TNC).
2.2. Formato Identificación de obra (FIO)

Se realizó sólo a los Residentes de las obra visitadas, y tiene como finalidad la de
obtener la información necesaria para clasificar la obra en los tipos indicados.
29
2.3. Formato de encuestas al personal técnico y administrativo de

obra (FEPETA)
Se realizaron encuestas al personal que participa en la planificación de la obra con
el fin de clasificarla en función de los dos criterios indicados en los objetivos de la
tesis.
2.4. Formato de encuestas al personal obrero (FEDOC):

Se realizaron encuestas a los obreros con el fin de identificar los principales
problemas con respecto a los recursos y a la comunicación en obra.
2.5. Entrevista a Subcontratistas y Proveedores:

Se realizaron entrevistas a los subcontratistas y proveedores con la finalidad de
conocer sus versiones y opiniones respecto a los principales problemas que
ocurren en obra.
3. CRITERIOS Y PROCEDIMIENTOS DE LA TOMA DE DATOS
3.1. Del Tipo de trabajo
Se decidió dividir el trabajo en tres tipos, los cuales serán explicados a

continuación:
3.1.1. Trabajo Productivo (TP):

Es el trabajo que aporta de forma directa a la producción.
Dentro de las actividades clasificadas como productivas (P) consideramos,
según la partida a la que pertenecen, las siguientes:
• Concreto : Vaciado, vibrado o chuseado, acomodo de la

mezcla con lampa y dar acabado a la superficie (caso de losas).
• Acero : Colocación y acomodo de barras de acero, atortolado de

mallas y refuerzos, armado de elementos estructurales fuera de sitio
(para transportar y colocar columnas o vigas ya armadas).
30
• Encofrado: Colocado de paneles de madera o metálicos, puntales y

demás elementos; reforzamiento del encofrado con grapas, alambre o
clavos, desencofrado.
• Albañilería: Colocación mortero en junta vertical y/u horizontal,

colocación de ladrillos y mechas de acero.
• Tarrajeo : Pañeteado, paleteado, regleado de superficie, dar

acabado a la superficie (con frotacho, esponja y otros).
Además las actividades de habilitación de materiales también fueron

consideras dentro de este rubro, entre las cuales tenemos:
• Concreto : Preparación del concreto en obra.
• Acero : Cortar y doblar las varillas para darles la forma adecuada

de refuerzo, bastones o estribos.
• Encofrado : Cortar madera para la preparación de paneles

para el encofrado, preparación de paneles de encofrado de madera.
• Albañilería : Preparación de mezcla seca de cemento y arena,

preparación de mortero, cortar y humedecer ladrillos.
• Tarrajeo : Preparación de mezcla seca de cemento y arena,

preparación de mortero.
3.1.2. Trabajo Contributorio (TC):

Se define como el trabajo de apoyo que debe ser realizado para que pueda
ejecutarse el trabajo productivo. Actividad necesaria, pero que no aporta
valor.
De modo explicativo, dentro de las actividades contributorias consideramos
el transporte de material y/o herramientas (T), cualquier tipo de medición
(M), la limpieza (L), dar o recibir instrucciones (I).
31
Dentro de las actividades clasificadas como otros contributorios (O)

tenemos, según la partida a la que pertenecen, los siguientes:
• Concreto : Abastecimiento de los componentes a otros

recipientes, sostener los recipientes.
• Acero : Sostener una barra para que otro la atortole, marcar con
tiza las barras y encofrados, armado de andamios.
• Encofrado: Sostener el encofrado (paneles, puntales, etc.) mientras

otro lo asegura, armado de andamios.
• Albañilería: Remover mortero sobrante, el abastecimiento de mezcla

a otro recipiente para el transporte, armado de andamios.
• Tarrajeo : Humedecer la pared, colocar y extraer los puntos

de referencia, armado de andamios.
3.1.3. Trabajo no contributorio (TNC):

Trabajo que no genera valor y no contribuye a otra actividad; por lo tanto, se
considera como actividad de pérdida.
Análogamente, como trabajo no contributorio se considera los viajes sin
llevar nada en las manos (V), las esperas del personal (E), ir a los servicios
higiénicos (BÑ), descansar (D), rehacer un trabajo (TR), hacer trabajos sin
valor (TO) y otros no contributorios (OC).
A fin de uniformizar los criterios de evaluación del trabajo, se realizaron mediciones

simultáneas, de un mismo proyecto, entre todos los miembros de grupo de tesis y se
comprobaron que los resultados obtenidos eran similares.
Cada medición consta de cinco juegos de datos; y cada juego, de 400 evaluaciones
del trabajo. Cada juego de datos se tomó en momentos distintos a lo largo del tiempo
que duraba la evaluación de la obra, que por lo general era de 5 días útiles.
32
El formato de medición del Nivel General de Actividad de Obra se encuentra en el

Anexo 02.
En el siguiente cuadro se resumen todas los tipos de trabajos considerados, su
condición (TP, TC, TNC) y su codificación:
Trabajo Productivo TP
Trabajo Productivo P
Habilitación de material HM
Trabajo Contributorio TC
Transporte de todo T
Limpieza de todo L
Dar y recibir instrucciones I
Mediciones M
Otros O
Trabajo No Contributorio TNC
Viajes V
Esperas E
Tiempo Ocioso TO
Trabajo Rehecho TR
Otro OT
Tabla Nº2 : Clasificación y codificación de los trabajos
3.2. De las Encuestas
Las encuestas estaban orientadas a obtener la información necesaria para

clasificar a las empresas dentro de los parámetros que describiremos más
adelante.
Básicamente, al Ingeniero Residente se le hacía la encuesta de Identificación de

Obra y la de Personal Técnico y Administrativo. Si hubiera otro participante en el
proceso de planificación de la obra, también debería responder la encuesta de
Personal Técnico y Administrativo.
33
En el caso del personal obrero, las preguntas estaban orientadas a corroborar la

veracidad con la cual se respondían las preguntas relacionadas a la planificación
de recursos (En el caso del personal Técnico y Administrativo); puesto que nos
enfocábamos en determinar si el obrero tenía tiempos no contributorios
(mayormente esperas) debido a una mala planificación.
Los dos formatos anteriormente descritos se pueden observar en el Anexo 02.
3.3. De las Entrevistas
En la relación Contratista – Subcontratista o proveedor; existen dos posiciones

bastante diferenciadas y creímos necesario conocer ambas. En el caso del
Contratista, las encuestas y las conversaciones durante el periodo de medición nos
permitieron conocer sus problemas y necesidades como clientes.
Pero en el caso de los Subcontratistas o Proveedores, el contacto no pudo ser tan
frecuente, por lo que se recurrió a pactar sendas entrevistas con varios de ellos, en
las cuales se realizaron preguntas respecto a los temas de industrialización y
subcontratos, como se puede ver en el Anexo02.
4. EVALUACION DE LA INFORMACION OBTENIDA
La evaluación de los datos obtenidos pasó por el siguiente proceso:
4.1. Etapa de Diagnóstico Individual
En esta etapa se evaluó la productividad de forma cuantitativa, mediante el

cálculo de los valores de los indicadores de productividad de modo
individual (por cada obra) y la generación de informes para las empresas
que nos brindaron su apoyo. Dicho informe contenía el promedio de los
datos obtenidos en la obra, su interpretación práctica y algunas
observaciones con recomendaciones, las cuales nos ayudarían a
determinar cuales son los problemas más frecuentes en las obras.
34
4.2. Etapa de Diagnóstico Integral
Es la segunda parte de la evaluación cuantitativa, en la cual se parte con

los resultados de la etapa individual. En un principio, clasificamos las obras
de acuerdo al tipo de estructura y al grado de integración entre los
subcontratos y contratistas.
Luego relacionamos su clasificación con en nivel de productividad de cada
obra. Por otro lado, determinamos el nivel de productividad de Lima
Metropolitana, dentro del ámbito de nuestros alcances.
4.3. Etapa de conclusiones y recomendaciones
En esta etapa interpretamos los resultados obtenidos en las dos etapas

predecesoras y generamos nuestras conclusiones y recomendaciones para
este trabajo de investigación.
35
iv. ANALISIS DE RESULTADOS
En esta sección se presenta, en primer lugar, el criterio que se ha optado para

clasificar a las obras analizadas. Luego se muestran los resultados obtenidos
referentes a productividad, al tipo de estructura y al grado de integración. En esta
parte se analiza la similitud o diferencia existente entre nuestros resultados con los
obtenidos hace 5 años.
Finalmente, se culmina el capítulo cruzando la información hallada relacionada al

tipo de estructura y al grado de integración con nivel de productividad
correspondiente.
1. PARAMETROS DE CLASIFICACION
1.1. Según grado de integración de los subcontratos:
Se evaluó el grado de integración de los subcontratos por medio de los

siguientes parámetros, propuestos por nosotros, a los cuales se les asignó
un puntaje según su importancia:
A. Modo de Elección:
Consideramos como Modo de Elección al conjunto de parámetros por
medio de los cuales la Empresa contratista evalúa las propuestas de los
distintos subcontratistas a fin de escoger la más adecuada para cerrar el
trato.
a) Menor costo
Se refiere a la elección del subcontratista teniendo como única
consideración que la propuesta ganadora sea la más barata de todas.
b) Sistema de Evaluación
La elección se realiza a través de un sistema de evaluación, el cual
engloba criterios como precio, calidad, trabajos anteriores, etc. además
que se analiza el efecto costo – beneficio.
36
B. Tipo de Contrato
Se refiere al modo de transmisión de las responsabilidades de ambas
partes durante la ejecución del proyecto.
a) Informal
Es el convenio en el cual no hay un documento que lo sustente. De
modo que es susceptible de modificaciones en cualquier momento y sin
respeto a ambas partes. No se puede ejercer ningún tipo de acción legal
y puede darse el caso de abusos por parte del contratista.
b) Formal
Es el convenio que tiene un documento escrito, en el cual se indica
solamente el metrado a realizar, el plazo a cumplir y el monto de pago
fijado. Debido a la poca claridad con que se detalla la tarea a realizar,
su interpretación suele ser de forma subjetiva y fácil de malinterpretar.
c) Óptimo
Es el convenio que, además de lo especificado para el escrito, incluye
especificaciones de la actividad subcontratada (según el riesgo que
aporte el subcontratista). Además, puede incluir un sistema de premios
y/o sanciones.
C. Costos
Se centra en determinar quién o quienes son los beneficiados al término
del proyecto. Se ha clasificado en dos tipos:
a) Unilateral
Cuando sólo se beneficia una de las partes, mayormente el contratista,
pudiendo provocar disminución en el márgen de ganancia, pérdidas o
cero utilidades a la otra parte involucrada.
b) Bilateral
Cuando ambas partes salen beneficiadas al término del contrato,
habiendo cumplido o superado sus expectativas.
37
D. Grado de control durante la ejecución del proyecto

Durante la ejecución del proyecto, el contratista ejerce un control sobre
los distintos aspectos que engloba la actividad subcontratada. Un alto
grado de control no sólo beneficia al contratista sino que a su vez el
subcontratista se ve beneficiado ya que se alinea a un procedimiento de
trabajo ordenado y eficiente. Dicho control se ha clasificado en tres,
según la intensidad del mismo:
a) Control mínimo o no controlado

Cuando no se ejerce ningún control o sólo se centra en el avance del
subcontratista. Éste se realiza cada cierto tiempo de forma esporádica.
b) Control mediano
Cuando se realizan controles de avance y calidad constructiva de
manera continua durante la ejecución del proyecto.
c) Control máximo
Cuando los controles son diarios o muy frecuentes y, además del
avance y calidad constructiva, evalúan temas como costos,
productividad, entre otros.
E. Participación en la planificación
La clasificación se centrará en la participación de los subcontratistas

durante el proceso de planificación, del modo que se indica a
continuación:
a) Activa
Si es que el subcontratista participa en algún tipo de planificación a
largo, mediano y corto plazo.
b) Pasiva
Si es que el subcontratista no participa en la planificación. También está
38
incluido en esta categoría el caso en el que el subcontratista se entera

del sector de avance al iniciar la jornada laboral.
F. Continuidad
Se refiere a la frecuencia de la participación del subcontratista con la

empresa contratista, en el caso de varios proyectos.
a) Nula
Si es que la empresa contratista cambia de subcontratista para cada
proyecto.
b) Inicial
En el caso del segundo o tercer proyecto que realiza la empresa con el
mismo subcontratista. Es decir, si es que existe una posibilidad de
continuidad alta.
c) Alta
En el caso de que el contratista y subcontratista tienen varios proyectos
trabajando en conjunto, mas no necesariamente a la vez.
Para realizar la clasificación se le asignó a cada característica un puntaje y se

establecieron rangos con la finalidad de ubicar a cada obra en un determinado
nivel de integración. El detalle de dicho procedimiento se explica en la sección
2.3.1. (pág. 53)
1.2. Según el tipo de estructura
Se evaluó el tipo de estructura por medio de los siguientes criterios:
39
SISTEMA
CLASIFICACION PROCESO CONSTRUCTIVO
ESTRUCTURAL
En este tipo se considera el uso de
albañilería con función estructural. Es decir,
en el caso de la albañilería confinada,
primero se debe colocar la armadura de los
elementos de confinamiento, luego levantar Albañilería armada,
el muro de ladrillo para finalmente vaciar los albañilería confinada,
TIPO I elementos de confinamiento. En el caso de sistemas mixtos (pórticos
la albañilería armada, el propio muro y albañilería)
representa el sistema de confinamiento, lo
que da como resultado que el muro y la
armadura se van levantando al mismo
tiempo.
En este tipo se considera el uso de
elementos estructurales de concreto, como Pórticos, Sistema Dual,
TIPO II placas y columnas, los cuales actúan Muros estructurales
formando pórticos estructurales.
En este tipo se considera el uso de muros de
Muros de ductilidad
concreto de espesor delgados como
limitada o muros de
TIPO III elementos estructurales. Las únicas
concreto armado hasta de
tabiquerías con los alfeizar de ventanas o
0.15 m de espesor.
parapetos.
Tabla Nº3 : Clasificación y codificación del tipo de estructura
2. PRESENTACION Y ANALISIS DE RESULTADOS
2.1. Relación Productividad año 2000 al 2005

Para la medición del nivel de productividad en cada obra, se realizó la siguiente
clasificación de los tipos de trabajo:
Trabajo Productivo TP
Actividades Productivas P
Habilitación de material HM
Trabajo Contributorio TC
Transporte de todo T
Limpieza de todo L
Dar y recibir instrucciones I
Mediciones M
Otros O
Trabajo No Contributorio TNC
Viajes V
40
Esperas E
Tiempo Ocioso TO
Trabajo Rehecho TR
Otro OT
Tabla Nº4 : Clasificación y codificación del trabajo

El detalle de las actividades consideradas dentro de cada uno de cada tipo de
trabajo puede leerse en el acápite 3.1 del presente informe (Página 32).
La siguiente tabla, muestra los porcentajes de tiempos del trabajo, obtenidos en

cada una de las obras analizadas, disgregando los Trabajos Productivos (TP),
Contributorios (TC) y No Contributorios (TNC).
41
NIVEL GENERAL DE ACTIVIDAD DE LA OBRA (NGO)
TP TC TNC
Obra
P HM T L I M O V E TO TR OT
1 29.6% 11.0% 15.6% 5.7% 4.1% 6.4% 5.0% 8.5% 7.1% 4.8% 0.0% 2.1%
2 25.1% 14.3% 20.4% 1.4% 5.8% 3.5% 7.9% 7.6% 9.6% 2.9% 0.1% 1.5%
3 29.5% 9.8% 14.4% 2.2% 5.6% 2.9% 10.9% 9.0% 11.8% 1.2% 0.8% 2.2%
4 16.1% 14.5% 15.0% 1.0% 2.8% 4.6% 7.0% 14.7% 15.5% 8.6% 0.0% 0.1%
5 28.2% 5.3% 16.0% 7.0% 6.2% 7.8% 3.1% 12.2% 7.5% 4.5% 0.7% 1.5%
6 22.6% 16.6% 16.9% 3.6% 5.7% 2.4% 7.4% 10.6% 9.8% 2.4% 0.6% 1.7%
7 18.9% 12.1% 28.0% 3.9% 6.1% 4.5% 6.1% 10.1% 6.8% 0.5% 0.7% 2.6%
8 31.2% 3.9% 24.3% 4.4% 5.0% 4.6% 7.0% 10.9% 5.5% 2.1% 0.5% 0.9%
9 18.5% 12.5% 22.6% 4.4% 5.9% 7.5% 6.3% 12.3% 4.7% 2.4% 0.3% 2.7%
10 25.4% 4.0% 14.7% 2.8% 4.4% 6.7% 14.0% 12.5% 11.1% 1.5% 0.1% 2.8%
11 20.8% 9.3% 16.4% 5.1% 5.0% 8.0% 13.1% 12.1% 3.4% 6.4% 0.5% 0.2%
12 20.5% 17.4% 19.1% 4.2% 5.9% 6.1% 7.2% 10.8% 3.3% 0.6% 0.0% 5.0%
13 25.0% 3.1% 18.3% 4.3% 7.2% 3.8% 11.9% 13.3% 10.6% 0.6% 0.1% 1.9%
14 17.5% 12.0% 18.9% 2.7% 5.9% 6.5% 1.3% 15.7% 10.7% 6.9% 1.3% 0.5%
15 22.8% 11.9% 18.6% 6.5% 4.3% 4.0% 10.7% 10.3% 6.8% 1.5% 0.6% 2.2%
16 15.6% 13.2% 14.8% 3.7% 9.3% 15.6% 6.8% 13.1% 4.7% 0.7% 0.7% 2.0%
17 15.0% 12.3% 24.6% 3.5% 6.7% 5.3% 8.7% 17.9% 3.5% 0.8% 0.1% 1.6%
18 16.5% 5.9% 24.5% 2.6% 8.0% 6.5% 1.4% 16.8% 7.3% 4.9% 4.8% 0.8%
19 26.4% 6.8% 19.2% 5.1% 6.4% 4.3% 0.3% 18.0% 8.1% 4.4% 0.6% 0.4%
20 24.2% 3.7% 22.6% 5.1% 5.0% 5.7% 12.1% 13.3% 6.1% 0.4% 0.5% 1.6%
21 20.4% 8.4% 15.3% 1.8% 6.0% 6.2% 16.1% 15.1% 7.3% 1.0% 0.0% 2.4%
22 22.2% 6.7% 23.5% 5.4% 5.4% 3.7% 6.0% 15.2% 8.7% 1.3% 0.7% 1.4%
23 22.1% 3.3% 22.1% 6.6% 7.2% 5.4% 9.6% 14.7% 4.4% 1.0% 0.8% 2.8%
24 13.1% 9.5% 18.0% 9.1% 6.4% 5.8% 10.8% 16.1% 5.8% 1.4% 1.7% 2.5%
25 29.2% 4.4% 11.7% 2.1% 9.9% 8.2% 14.7% 8.5% 8.3% 1.4% 0.0% 1.5%
26 25.6% 4.9% 14.3% 4.9% 7.2% 5.8% 8.4% 15.1% 8.1% 3.5% 1.4% 0.8%
Tabla Nº5 : Porcentajes obtenidos de cada tipo de trabajo
42
2.1.1. Nivel de Productividad Promedio
En la Tabla Nº6, mostramos los porcentajes por actividad, obtenidos a partir

del promedio de las 26 obras analizadas.
ACTIVIDAD PROMEDIO
P Trabajo Productivo 22.40%

TP
HM Habilitación de material 9.10%
T Transporte de todo 18.80%
L Limpieza de todo 4.20%

TC
I Dar y recibir instrucciones 6.00%
M Mediciones 5.80%
O Otros 8.20%
V Viajes 12.90%
E Esperas 7.60%
TNC
TO Tiempo ocioso 2.60%
TR Trabajo rehecho 0.70%
OT Otros 1.70%
Tabla Nº6 : Porcentajes promedios obtenidos de cada tipo de trabajo, año 2005
Clasificación del tipo de trabajo en el año 2005
TNC
25.40%
TC
43.10% TP,
31.50%
Cuadro Nº7 : Porcentajes promedios de cada tipo de trabajo
Según el presente estudio el Nivel Promedio de Productividad de la mano de

obra en obras de edificación para vivienda en Lima Metropolitana resulta ser
43
de 31.50%, observándose que la mayor cantidad de tiempo, 43%, es

dedicado a actividades contributorias.
En el siguiente diagrama se muestran las actividades no productivas

organizadas en orden descendente. Donde podemos notar que las
actividades de Transportes (T) y Viajes (V) son las de mayor incidencia con
18.80% y 12.90% respectivamente.
18.80%
20%
18%
16%
12.90%
14%
Porcentaje
12%
10%
8.20% 7.60%
8%
6.00% 5.80%
6% 4.20%
2.60%
4% 1.70%
0.70%
2%
0%
T V O E I M L TO OT TR
Actividad
Cuadro Nº8 : Diagrama de Pareto de las actividades No Productivas
Vemos que la actividad de Otros contributorios (O), también resulta ser

significativa, con 8.20%. En ella se consideraron como, revisiones y
actividades de apoyo como; cuando el personal obrero sostiene algún
elemento para que otro personal pueda colocarlo, por ejemplo en el caso del
acero, cuando atortolan, hay un personal que sostiene la barra para que otro
la pueda asegurar; en el caso del encofrado antes de colocar hay una
persona sosteniendo los paneles a encofrar, mientras otro revisa que se este
colocando bien y en el caso de vaciados de concreto, se observa esta
actividad cuando algunos obreros sostienen la manguera para poder vaciar el
concreto).
44
2.1.2. Nivel de Productividad según la investigación realizada en el año

2000
En un estudio realizado el año 2000 con la asesoría del Ing Virgilio Ghio, se
encontraron los siguientes resultados:
TNC,
35.90%
TC, TP,
36.30% 27.90%
Cuadro Nº9 : Distribución de tipo de trabajo – año 2000
Comparación de resultados con los obtenidos el año 2000
Para poder comparar los resultados actuales con los obtenidos el 2000, es
necesario analizar nuestros datos a partir de los mismos parámetros que se
consideraron en dicha investigación.
De modo ilustrativo, hemos considerado oportuno mostrar el siguiente
cuadro, en el cual mostramos la diferencia de criterios entre ambas
mediciones:
ACTIVIDAD EVALUADA TESIS 2000 TESIS 2005

CONCRETO:
Vaciado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Vibrado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Chuceado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Lampeado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Dar acabado a la superficie PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Preparar mezcla PRODUCTIVO HABILITACION
Curado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Abastecimento de los componentes CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
ENCOFRADO:
Colocación de paneles PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Colocación puntales y otros elementos PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Reforzamiento encofrado (grapas, alambre, clavos) PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Desencofrado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Fabricar paneles PRODUCTIVO HABILITACION
Cortar madera para paneles CONTRIBUTORIO HABILITACION
Limpieza de paneles CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Sostener encofrado CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Armado de andamios CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
45
ACERO:
Colocación y acomodo de barras de acero PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Atortolado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Armando de elementos estructurales fuera de sitio PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Habilitación de acero (cortado y doblado) PRODUCTIVO HABILITACION
Sostener barra CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Marcar con tiza las barras y encofrado CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
ALBAÑILERIA:
Colocación de mortero en junta vertical y horizontal PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Colocación de ladrillos y mechas de acero PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Preparación de mortero PRODUCTIVO HABILITACION
Preparación de mezcla seca CONTRIBUTORIO HABILITACION
Cortar y humedecer ladrillo CONTRIBUTORIO HABILITACION
Abastecimiento de mezcla a otro recipiente CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Limpieza de mortero CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
TARRAJEO
Pañeteado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Paleteado PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Regleado de superficie PRODUCTIVO PRODUCTIVO
Preparación de mortero PRODUCTIVO HABILITACION
Preparación de mezcla seca PRODUCTIVO HABILITACION
Abastecimiento de mezcla a otro recipiente CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Limpieza de mortero CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Humeder la pared CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Colocar puntos de referencia CONTRIBUTORIO CONTRIBUTORIO
Tabla Nº6A : Comparativo de criterios entre tesis del 2005 y el 2000
La diferencia básica radica en que las actividades evaluadas como

Habilitación en el 2005 son consideradas productivas en su totalidad;
mientras que, en la tesis del 2000, algunas habilitaciones son consideradas
contributorias y otras productivas, tal y como se muestra en el cuadro.
En el resto de actividades contributorias, como los transportes, limpieza,

instrucciones y mediciones, no hubo diferencias.
De la misma forma, en las actividades no contributorias, tales como viajes,

tiempo ocioso, esperas, trabajo rehecho, descansos, necesidades fisiológicas
y otros, no se encontró diferencia de criterios.
Ya que medimos con suficiente detalle lo referente a las habilitaciones,

pudimos disgregarlas y adecuarlas al criterio utilizado en el año 2000;
46
obteniendo el siguiente cuadro, el cual representa la productividad del año

2005 con el criterio tomado el año 2000:
ACTIVIDAD PROMEDIO
P Trabajo Productivo 22.40%
TP
HM Habilitación de material 8.00%
PM Preparación de material 4.00%
T Transporte de todo 18.80%
L Limpieza de todo 4.20%

TC
I Dar y recibir instrucciones 6.00%
M Mediciones 5.80%
O Otros 5.30%
V Viajes 12.90%
E Esperas 7.60%
TNC
TO Tiempo ocioso 2.60%
TR Trabajo rehecho 0.70%
OT Otros 1.70%
Tabla Nº7 : Clasificación actual del tipo de trabajo a partir de la investigación del 2000
Se agregó una actividad, que se consideró en ese análisis dentro de otros

contributorios, la actividad de Preparación de Material (PM), que incluye
humedecer ladrillos, partir ladrillos, cortar madera, etc. Si se observa con
detenimiento la Tabla 6A, veremos que Preparación de Material corresponde
a las actividades de habilitación del año 2005 que fueron consideradas
contributorias en el año 2000.
En el siguiente gráfico podemos ver el promedio resultado de las mediciones

considerando los mismos parámetros tomados el año 2000.
47
TNC
25.40%
TC
44.20% TP,
30.40%
Cuadro Nº10 : Clasificación actual del tipo de trabajo a partir de la investigación del 2000
Vemos que la diferencia entre las mediciones realizadas considerando los

parámetros planteados en esta investigación y lo definido en la investigación
del año 2000 es de 1.10%. Diferencia que no resulta ser muy significativo,
debido a que tener un nivel de productividad de 30.40% o 31.50%, implicaría
que de las 8 horas laborales los trabajadores sólo realizan 2.5 horas trabajos
productivos.
A partir de los resultados obtenidos con los parámetros considerados en la

investigación del 2000, podemos afirmar que la productividad en Lima
Metropolitana incrementó en 2.40%, que no es muy considerable, tomando
en cuenta que el error máximo de la medición es de 1.90%.
Comparando los resultados, el hallado hace cinco años y los resultados

obtenidos en este estudio, obtenemos el siguiente cuadro:
48
MEDICIONES MEDICIONES
ACTIVIDAD 2000 2005
TP
P Trabajo Productivo 28.00% 30.40%
T Transporte de todo 14.00% 18.80%
L Limpieza de todo 4.00% 4.20%

TC
I Dar y recibir instrucciones 3.00% 6.00%
M Mediciones 5.00% 5.80%
O Otros 11.00% 9.30%
V Viajes 13.00% 12.90%
E Esperas 6.00% 7.60%

TNC
TO Tiempo ocioso 10.00% 2.60%
TR Trabajo rehecho 3.00% 0.70%
OT Otros 3.00% 1.70%
Tabla Nº8: Comparación entre las mediciones – Año 2000 y 2005
Año 2000 Año 2005

TNC
TNC,
35.90% 25.40%
TC
TC, TP , 44.20% TP,
36.30% 27.90%
30.40%
Cuadro Nº11: Comparación entre las mediciones – Año 2000 y 2005
En la que podemos notar que las actividades no contributorias han disminuido, pero
eso no ocurre con las contributorias. Donde podemos apreciar que la actividad de
instrucciones ha duplicado su porcentaje. Algo similar ocurre con la actividad de
transportes conde su porcentaje incremento.
49
2.2. Relación Productividad con el tipo de estructura
Utilizando los criterios indicados en páginas anteriores, cada uno de los 26

proyectos fueron clasificados dentro de tres tipos de estructuras vinculados a
procesos constructivos similares.
Una vez agrupados, se calculó la productividad promedio por cada tipo,

arrojando los resultados que mostramos en el siguiente cuadro:
RESULTADOS DE MEDICIONES TIPO DE RESULTADOS PROMEDIO

ESTRUCTURA
COD TP TC TNC TP TC TNC
1 40.64% 36.77% 22.59%

9 31.02% 46.66% 22.32% TIPO I 33.92% 43.62% 22.46%
11 30.11% 47.44% 22.45%
4 30.60% 30.38% 39.01%
3 39.27% 35.87% 24.86%
6 39.15% 35.95% 24.90%
7 30.96% 48.59% 20.45%
14 29.57% 35.26% 35.17%
15 34.75% 43.95% 21.30%
TIPO II 30.26% 42.58% 27.15%
16 28.78% 50.07% 21.15%
17 27.32% 48.83% 23.85%
18 22.44% 42.85% 34.71%
21 28.84% 45.41% 25.75%
22 28.93% 43.80% 27.28%
24 22.58% 50.02% 27.40%
2 39.46% 38.98%
5 33.55% 40.04% 26.41%
8 35.07% 45.19% 19.75%
10 29.45% 42.58% 27.96%
12 37.89% 42.51% 19.60% TIPO III 32.20% 43.51% 24.29%
20 27.88% 50.32% 21.80%
23 25.41% 51.00% 23.59%
26 30.49% 40.72% 28.79%
25 33.64% 46.64% 19.72%
Tabla Nº9: Comparación entre tipo de estructura y productividad
50
A manera ilustrativa preparamos el siguiente gráfico:
TIEMPOS vs ESTRUCTURA
25 30 35 40 45 50
%
TIEMPOS
TC
%
%
PORCENTAJE
TP
%
%
%
TNC
20
%
TIPO I TIPO III TIPO II

TIPO DE ESTRUCTURA
Cuadro Nº12 Comparación entre tipo de estructura y productividad
Observamos que no hay una tendencia lineal en cuanto a la relación entre el

tipo de estructura y los tiempos productivos, es decir, que si consideramos el
error del 1.90% de nuestras mediciones, los rangos entre los TP, TC y TNC de
los tres tipos se interceptarán.
Sin embargo, introducimos un nuevo indicador, el cual es la velocidad de

avance del casco estructural. Se obtuvo a partir de la secuencia constructiva de
los proyectos, considerando el cociente entre el área de losa vaciada y los días
que se demoran en armarlas. Cabe resaltar que esto incluye el levantamiento
de los elementos verticales que sostienen la losa.
Relacionamos la velocidad de avance del caso estructural y los tipos de

estructura y obtuvimos los siguientes resultados:
51
PARAMETROS DE VELOCIDAD VELOCIDAD

TIPO DE
AREA TIEMPO VELOCIDAD PROMEDIO
ESTRUCTURA
COD (M2) (DIA) (M2/DIA) (M2/DIA)
1 135 6 22.50
9 200 12 16.67 TIPO I 22.50
11 340 12 28.33
4 83 2 41.50
14 500 12 41.67
16 250 12 20.83
17 500 12 41.67
21 600 15 40.00
TIPO II 37.33
22 400 7 57.14
7 176 6 29.33
15 600 18 33.33
18 680 18 37.78
24 240 8 30.00
2 113 2 56.25
5 96 2 48.08
8 175 2 87.50
10 143 2 71.25
12 320 12 26.67 TIPO III 66.42
20 65 1 65.00
23 485 6 80.83
26 127 1 127.00
25 80 1 80.00
Tabla Nº10 Comparación entre tipo de estructura y velocidad
A manera ilustrativa preparamos el siguiente gráfico:
VELOCIDAD (M2/DIA)
70.00
66.42
60.00
50.00
40.00
37.33
30.00
22.50
20.00
TIPO I TIPO II TIPO III
Cuadro Nº13 Comparación entre tipo de estructura y productividad
52
Aquí observamos claramente que los sistemas estructurales de muros

delgados alcanzan velocidades mucho mayores que los otros sistemas, sin
necesidad de ser más productivos.
Le quisimos dar una interpretación práctica a los valores de velocidad hallados

y para ello tomamos como ejemplo un departamento de 80 m2, el cual es un
área promedio en la actualidad, y apuntamos que si fuera diseñado con
albañilería demoraría 3.60 días es construirse; si fuera diseñado con pórticos
de columnas y/o placas, 2.60 días; y si fuera un sistema de muros de espesor
delgados, 1.20 días. Por supuesto, gran parte de la velocidad es definida por el
tipo de programación empleada, por lo que los valores indicados son
referenciales.
2.3. Grado de integración entre subcontratistas y contratistas
2.3.1. Clasificación de los niveles de integración
Como se explicó anteriormente, en base a los criterios utilizados para definir el

grado de integración entre los participantes de un proyecto, las obras
analizadas fueron clasificadas en tres tipos en base a un sistema de
puntuación establecido por nosotros. La información utilizada para dicha
clasificación fue obtenida mediante la encuesta al personal técnico y
administrativo.
En el siguiente cuadro se aprecian las características de cada tipo propuesto,

en donde las obras Tipo I presentan el mayor nivel de integración:
53
CUADRO DE CLASIFICACIÓN DE NIVELES DE INTEGRACIÓN

Control Alto Control Mediano Control bajo o no controlado
1. TIPO DE
CONTROL
Cuando los controles son diarios o Cuando no se ejerce ningún

Cuando se realizan controles de
muy frecuentes y, además del control o sólo se centra en el
avance y calidad constructiva de
avance y calidad constructiva, avance del subcontratista. Éste se
manera continua durante la
evalúan temas como costos, realiza cada cierto tiempo de forma
ejecución del proyecto.
productividad, entre otros. esporádica.
Óptimo Formal Informal
2. TIPO DE CONTRATO
Es el contrato que tiene un Es el contrato en el cual no hay un

Es el contrato que, además de lo
documento escrito, en el cual se documento que lo sustente. De
especificado para el escrito,
indica solamente el metrado a modo que es susceptible de
incluye especificaciones de la
realizar, el plazo a cumplir y el modificaciones en cualquier
actividad subcontratada (según el
monto de pago fijado. Debido a la momento y sin respeto a ambas
riesgo que aporte el
poca claridad con que se detalla la partes. No se puede ejercer ningún
subcontratista). Además, puede
tarea a realizar, su interpretación tipo de acción legal y puede darse
incluir un sistema de premios y/o
suele ser de forma subjetiva y fácil el caso de abusos por parte del
sanciones.
de malinterpretar. contratista.
Alta Inicial Nula

CONTINUIDAD
En el caso del segundo o tercer

En el caso de que el contratista y proyecto que realiza la empresa Si es que la empresa contratista
3.
subcontratista tienen varios con el mismo subcontratista. Es cambia de subcontratista para

proyectos trabajando en conjunto. decir, si es que existe una cada proyecto.
posibilidad de continuidad alta.
Sistema de Evaluación Menor Costo
4. MODO DE
ELECCIÓN
La elección se realiza a través de

(*) Las obras Tipo II cumplen con Se refiere a la elección del
un sistema de evaluación, el cual
lo especificado para las obras Tipo subcontratista teniendo como única
engloba criterios como precio,
I, en al menos 2 de las 3 consideración que la propuesta
calidad, trabajos anteriores, etc.
características mencionadas en los ganadora sea la más barata de
además que se analiza el efecto
puntos (4), (5) y (6). todas.
costo – beneficio.
Bilateral Unilateral
Cuando sólo se beneficia una de
5. COSTO
Cuando ambas partes salen las partes, mayormente el

beneficiadas al término del contratista, pudiendo provocar
(*)
contrato, habiendo cumplido o disminución en el márgen de
superado sus espectativas. ganancia, pérdidas o cero utilidad
a la otra parte involucrada.
Activa Pasiva
6. PARTICIPACIÓN EN
LA PLANIFICACIÓN
Si es que el subcontratista no
participa en la planificación.
Si es que el subcontratista
También está incluida en esta
participa en algún tipo de
(*) categoría el caso en el que el
planificación a largo, mediano y
subcontratista se entera del sector
corto plazo.
de avance al iniciar la jornada
laboral.
Tabla Nº11: Cuadro de clasificación del tipo de los niveles de integración
De las 26 obras analizadas, 23 de ellas presentaban algún tipo de subcontrato.

Esto quiere decir que alrededor del 88% de las obras en Lima Metropolitana
54
deciden subcontratar algunas actividades, lo cual es comparable con la

tendencia que actualmente ocurre en muchos lugares del mundo.
Para poder clasificar las empresas en los tipos descritos anteriormente, se

decidió asignarle puntaje a cada uno de los criterios de evaluación, según se
indica en el siguiente cuadro:
CUADRO DE PUNTAJES ASIGNADOS
ALTO MEDIANO BAJO O NINGUNO

1. Tipo de control
100 67 33
OPTIMO FORMAL INFORMAL
2. Tipo de contrato
100 67 33
ALTA INICIAL NULA
3. Continuidad
100 75 50
SISTEMA DE
MENOR COSTO
4. Modo de elección EVALUACION
100 50
UNILATERAL MENOR COSTO
5. Costo
100 50
ACTIVA PASIVA
6. Participación en la planificación
100 50
Tabla Nº11A: Cuadro de puntajes asignados a cada criterio de evaluación
Ya que les asignamos puntaje a cada uno de los criterios de evaluación, es

imperativo definir límites sobre los cuales discernir cada empresa en los tres
tipos descritos en la Tabla Nº11.
55
De este modo se planteó la siguiente puntuación:
PUNTAJES LIMITES PARA LA CLASIFICACION
MINIMOS PUNTAJES PARA

TIPO III TIPO II TIPO I
BAJO MEDIANO ALTO
1. Tipo de control
33 67 100
INFORMAL FORMAL OPTIMO
2. Tipo de contrato
33 67 67
NULA INICIAL ALTA
3. Continuidad
50 75 75
MENOR COSTO SIST. EVAL. (*) SIST. EVAL.
4. Modo de elección
50 100 100
UNILATERAL BILATERAL (*) BILATERAL
5. Costo
50 100 100
PASIVA PASIVA (*) ACTIVA
6. Participación
50 50 100
LÌMITES MÌNIMOS 266 459 542
(*) Está cumpliendo con dos de las tres caracteríscas esenciales para el tipo máximo
en los puntos 4, 5 o 6. Independiente de la característica que se incumpla, se obtiene
el mismo puntaje.
Tabla Nº11B: Cuadro de puntajes límites para la clasificación
De esta forma se obtiene que para que una empresa sea considerada dentro
del Tipo II, su puntuación debe estar entre 459 y 541 puntos. Puntuaciones
superiores indicaran que la empresa se encuentra dentro del Tipo I y de la
misma forma, puntuaciones menores indicaran que la empresa se encuentra
dentro del Tipo III.
Para mayor información, consultar el Anexo Nº04 en donde se muestra el

cuadro con el que se clasificaron las obras.
2.4. Relación entre el Nivel de Integración y la productividad
El objetivo de esta parte del trabajo es mostrar los resultados obtenidos

respecto a los subcontratos en la construcción y compararlos con los datos de
56
productividad arrojados por las mediciones a fin de averiguar si es que existe

alguna relación entre ambos factores.
A continuación se presentan los resultados obtenidos en base a la clasificación

indicada y además se están colocando los resultados de productividad de las
obras:
NIVEL DE INTEGRACIÓN
MEDICIONES - NIVEL GENERAL DE
OBRA
TP TC TNC
CLASIFICACIÓN
NUM TP TC TNC PROMEDIO PROMEDIO PROMEDIO
1 40.64% 36.77% 22.59% TIPO I 40.64% 36.77% 22.59%

7 30.96% 48.59% 20.45% TIPO II
8 35.07% 45.19% 19.75% TIPO II
15 34.75% 43.95% 21.30% TIPO II 32.98% 45.02% 22.00%
25 33.64% 46.64% 19.72% TIPO II
26 30.49% 40.72% 28.79% TIPO II
9 31.02% 46.66% 22.32% TIPO III
2 39.46% 38.98% 21.56% TIPO III
3 39.27% 35.87% 24.86% TIPO III
4 30.60% 30.38% 39.01% TIPO III
5 33.55% 40.04% 26.41% TIPO III
6 39.15% 35.95% 24.90% TIPO III
10 29.45% 42.58% 27.96% TIPO III
11 30.11% 47.44% 22.45% TIPO III
13 28.15% 45.43% 26.42% TIPO III 30.56% 42.46% 26.98%
14 29.57% 35.26% 35.17% TIPO III
16 28.78% 50.07% 21.15% TIPO III
18 22.44% 42.85% 34.71% TIPO III
19 33.18% 35.23% 31.59% TIPO III
20 27.88% 50.32% 21.80% TIPO III
22 28.93% 43.80% 27.28% TIPO III
23 25.41% 51.00% 23.59% TIPO III
24 22.58% 50.02% 27.40% TIPO III
Tabla Nº12: Comparación entre la productividad y el nivel de integración
57
Para poder apreciar mejor los resultados, se presenta el siguiente gráfico:
TIPO I:
Integración estratégica
TIPO II:
Integración en vías de desarrollo
TIPO III:
No hay Integración
Cuadro Nº14: Comparación entre la productividad y el nivel de integración
Como se puede apreciar en el gráfico, a mayor grado de integración se obtiene

un mayor tiempo productivo. Esto se debe a que las obras TIPO I manejan una
mejor forma de gestión y administración de subcontratos en comparación con
los otros tipos de obras. Si bien la diferencia es bastante clara entre las obras
TIPO I y TIPO II (7.66% de diferencia), la diferencia entre las obras TIPO II y
TIPO III es nada relevante (2.30% de diferencia) considerando que estas
mediciones tienen un error de 1.90%.
Con la finalidad de entender mejor cuales han sido los resultados de la

clasificación de las diferentes obras según los seis criterios de clasificación
expuestos, se presenta el siguiente cuadro:
58
CUADRO DE CLASIFICACIÓN DE NIVELES DE INTEGRACIÓN

Control Alto Control Mediano Control bajo o no controlado
2. TIPO DE 1. TIPO DE
CONTRATO CONTROL
26.09% 47.83% 26.09%
Óptimo Formal Informal
30.43% 65.22% 4.35%
Alta Inicial Nula

3. CONTINUIDAD
52.17% 21.74% 26.09%

4. MODO DE
(*) TIPO I 80% del total de

ELECCIÓN
Sistema de Evaluación Menor Costo

TIPO II
TIPO III 20% del total

39.13% 60.87%
de TIPO II
(**) TIPO I 40% del total

Bilateral Unilateral
5. COSTO
de TIPO II

13.04% 86.96%
de TIPO II
6. PARTICIPACIÓN
(***) TIPO I 60% del total

PLANIFICACIÓN
Activa Pasiva
de TIPO II
EN LA

17.39% 82.61%
de TIPO II
Tabla Nº13: Productividad según criterio de clasificación
(*) Del total de obras clasificadas como Tipo II, el 80% utiliza como modo de
elección el Sistema de Evaluación y el 20% restante el de Menor Costo.
(**) Del total de obras clasificadas como Tipo II, el 40% propicia un beneficio
bilateral mientras que el 60% restante busca un beneficio unilateral.
59
(***) Del total de obras clasificadas como Tipo II, el 60% fomenta una
participación activa del subcontratista en la clasificación mientras que el 40%
restante lo hace de forma pasiva.
Los porcentajes que se indican, salvo en los casilleros marcados con (*) en la
Tabla No 11, representan el porcentaje de obras cuyas características coincide
con lo indicado por la matriz. De esta forma se aprecia que la mayoría de
empresas realiza un control mediano, con contratos de tipo formal según
nuestra descripción (Ver Parámetros de clasificación punto IV-1-1.1. página 36)
y mantienen una alta continuidad con sus subcontratistas.
Lo que podría explicar el porqué de la similitud en los resultados de

productividad entre las empresas del TIPO II y del TIPO III es el hecho de que
la mayoría de empresas optan por utilizar como modo de elección la propuesta
con menor costo, con beneficio sólo para el contratista (esto es el denominado
principio de suma cero, el cual indica que mientras una empresa se ve
beneficiada la otra pierde o deja de ganar) y en donde el subcontratista, en la
gran mayoría de los casos (aproximadamente en el 80% de ellos), se ve
alejado de la toma de decisiones y de la participación en la planificación.
En el proceso de toma de datos, también se consultó a los subcontratistas cual

o cuales eran los insumos que ellos aportaban a la obra, siendo las opciones
Mano de Obra (MO), Materiales (MAT), Diseño (DIS) y Mantenimiento (MANT).
Según los datos recopilados, obtenemos el siguiente cuadro:
Aporte del Subcontratista

MO 75 79%
MO MAT 17 18%
MO MAT DIS 2 2%
MO MAT DIS MANT 1 1%
Total Act.
95
Subcontratada
Tabla Nº13A: Porcentajes de actividades subcontratadas.
Como se muestra en la tabla No 13A, de todas las actividades subcontratadas

consideradas, aproximadamente el 80% de ellas involucra subcontratas de sólo
60
mano de obra (MO). Esto explica también el motivo por el cual se producen los
resultados mostrados en el cuadro superior en los puntos (4), (5) y (6). Dada la
gran cantidad de subcontratistas de este tipo, la selección suele ser de gran
competencia lo que motiva que los precios se bajen involucrando muchas
veces bajas en calidad. Esto también afecta al subcontratista ya que al reducir
sus costos por conseguir el trabajo, tiene que sacrificar o su ganancia o la
calidad de su trabajo (por ejemplo contratando peones para un trabajo que
requiere operarios, o personal no especializado que se dedica a realizar
actividades múltiples: se puede ver fierreros que se encuentran también
encofrando o haciendo trabajos de albañilería). Además, este tipo de
subcontrata en la mayoría de los casos se encuentra totalmente subordinado a
lo ordenado por el residente o el ingeniero responsable, quedando relegado
totalmente de la toma de decisiones.
Por último, se muestra un cuadro en donde se muestra el porcentaje de obras

que pertenecen a un tipo determinado:
NUM CLASIFICACIÓN %
1 TIPO I 4.35%
7 TIPO II
8 TIPO II
15 TIPO II 21.74%
25 TIPO II
26 TIPO II
2 TIPO III
3 TIPO III
4 TIPO III
5 TIPO III
6 TIPO III
9 TIPO III
10 TIPO III
11 TIPO III
13 TIPO III 73.91%
14 TIPO III
16 TIPO III
18 TIPO III
19 TIPO III
20 TIPO III
22 TIPO III
23 TIPO III
24 TIPO III
TOTAL: 23 OBRAS
(Las otras 3 obras de las 26 analizadas no
tenìan subcontratos).
Tabla Nº13B: Porcentajes de obras por cada tipo.
61
2.5. Relación entre la productividad y el porcentaje de obra

subcontratada
En el siguiente cuadro se compara la productividad con el porcentaje del

presupuesto que se encontraba subcontratado:
% PRESUPUESTO
MEDICIONES - NIVEL GENERAL DE OBRA SUBCONTRATADO
TP TC TNC
%
NUM TP TC TNC PROMEDIO PROMEDIO PROMEDIO
1 40.64% 36.77% 22.59% 22%

11 30.11% 47.44% 22.45% 15%
12 37.89% 42.51% 19.60% 0%
15 34.75% 43.95% 21.30% 7%
17 27.32% 48.83% 23.85% 0%
19 33.18% 35.23% 31.59% 23% 32% 44% 24%
20 27.88% 50.32% 21.80% 8%
21 28.84% 45.41% 25.75% 0%
24 22.58% 50.02% 27.40% 20%
25 33.64% 46.64% 19.72% 20%
26 30.49% 40.72% 28.79% 15%
7 30.96% 48.59% 20.45% 50%
8 35.07% 45.19% 19.75% 30%
9 31.02% 46.66% 22.32% 40% 31% 46% 23%
10 29.45% 42.58% 27.96% 35%
13 28.15% 45.43% 26.42% 30%
3 39.27% 35.87% 24.86% 60%
16 28.78% 50.07% 21.15% 60% 32% 43% 24%
22 28.93% 43.80% 27.28% 65%

2 39.46% 38.98% 21.56% 100%
4 30.60% 30.38% 39.01% 100%
5 33.55% 40.04% 26.41% 90%
6 39.15% 35.95% 24.90% 100% 31% 39% 29%
14 29.57% 35.26% 35.17% 100%
18 22.44% 42.85% 34.71% 95%
23 25.41% 51.00% 23.59% 100%
Máximo 40.64% 51.00% 39.01%

Mínimo 22.44% 30.38% 19.60%
VALOR PROMEDIO 31.50% 43.10% 25.40%
En el cuadro se han separado las 26 obras en 4 grupos de acuerdo a la

cantidad subcontratada respecto del presupuesto (de 0% a 25%, de 25% a
50%, de 50% a 75% y de 75% a 100%).
62
En el gráfico que se muestra a continuación se aprecia la relación entre los

tiempos productivos y el porcentaje del presupuesto subcontratado:
38%
TIEMPO PRODUCTIVO
33%
28%
23%
18%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
PORCENTAJE SUBCONTRATADO
Cuadro Nº15: Productividad según porcentaje de presupuesto subcontratado
No se aprecia mayor diferencia entre los valores de tiempos productivos; el

promedio máximo es 32% el mínimo es 31% y el promedio es de 31.5%. Este
resultado no coincide con lo que mencionan Shimizu y Cardoso, quienes
aseguran que el uso adecuado de subcontratos tiende a aumentar la
productividad de la mano de obra debido a los efectos de replicación,
continuidad y aprendizaje.
Es probable que este resultado se deba a la subcontrata de mano de obra y al
problema que acarrea el hecho de subcontratar teniendo como el parámetro
más importante de selección el costo.
63
v. IDENTIFICACION Y DESCRIPCION DE LAS PERDIDAS

ENCONTRADAS
En esta etapa de la investigación haremos un listado de una serie de actividades y

prácticas comunes en la construcción que en realidad generan pérdidas y que
deberían ser corregidas a futuro.
Cada una de ellas ha sido dividida por rubros:
1. Respecto a la Productividad
Para identificar los problemas más frecuentes desde la perspectiva del Ingeniero
Residente, se incluyó en el Formato de Identificación de Obra una serie de problemas,
los cuales debían ser calificados por los ingenieros como las causas más comunes de
pérdida.
De acuerdo a los datos medidos tenemos:
PORCENTAJE DE
PROBLEMAS FRECUENTES
INCIDENCIA
Sindicatos, los cuales paralizan las actividades por

21%
marchas o por coacción al Ingeniero Residente.
Abastecimiento, en materiales clave como ladrillos,

18%
arena, cemento, concreto premezclado, etc.
Subcontratos, los detalles de los problemas se

17%
encontrarán más adelante.
Rendimientos, ya que a veces no se presupuesta con

el rendimiento adecuado o no se controla 14%
adecuadamente el avance de las cuadrillas.
Descoordinaciones, cambios repentinos, falta de
compatibilización en el diseño, falta de comunicación 12%
entre personal técnico – obrero.
Otros, como problemas financieros, obligaciones

9%
municipales en horarios, etc.
Maquinaria, mantenimiento inadecuado o deficiente. 6%
Tramites públicos
3%
Tabla Nº15: Incidencia de los problemas en subcontratos
64
Durante las visitas a las distintas obras se notó un interés de los profesionales por el
tema de la productividad, sin embargo no tienen personal dedicado a ello y por los
tanto no disminuyen (o eliminan) las pérdidas tales como:
• Exceso de movimientos del personal obrero, es decir, cuando aplica más

movimientos físicos en una actividad debido a malas prácticas constructivas o
herramientas ineficientes.
• Exceso de transportes, cuando se colocan los materiales “donde haya

espacio”, en lugar de hacer un estudio del layout de la obra y del lugar óptimo
donde se debe colocar los materiales y equipos para que los recorridos del
personal sea mínimos.
• Exceso de inventarios y logística deficiente, cuando se podría optimizar la

llegada de los materiales necesarios en el momento adecuado mediante la
aplicación del just in timei.
• Presencia de esperas innecesarias, debido a descoordinaciones o a fallas en

un eslabón de la cadena de proveedores, lo cual compromete a los siguientes.
• Poca supervisión o poco seguimiento de las actividades, lo cual hace que la

subsanación de errores no sea en el momento adecuado y se generen trabajos
rehechos, es decir, eliminar el trabajo hecho hasta antes del error y luego
hacerlo de la manera correcta.
Esto último está enfocado a la obra en general, sin embargo, como la presente
investigación se ha centrado en el insumo mano de obra, es lógico que indiquemos los
problemas comunes que la aquejan y que son las siguientes:
• El personal obrero es rotativo y a menos que se trate de obras de larga

duración, no se logra desarrollar habilidades de trabajo de equipo.
i
Just in time: Método productivo que tiene por objetivos la eliminación del despilfarro, desarrollar un
flujo de trabajo simple y una gestión también simple.
65
• Aplicación de métodos tradicionales de construcción. Debido a que la

capacitación no es una práctica usual, la mano de obra siempre emplea los
mismos métodos, los cuales son los mismos que les enseñan a las
generaciones siguientes.
• El sistema de gestión en la construcción es, por lo general, una política de

control, con una tendencia jerárquica vertical. El obrero sólo cumple órdenes y
no participa en las decisiones. Esto sumado a que no existe un sistema de
incentivos usual, genera un sentimiento de poca motivación y poca
identificación con los intereses de la empresa.
2. Respecto al Tipo de estructura
En esta sección indicaremos los problemas encontrados en la etapa anterior a la

construcción del proyecto, ya que los problemas durante la ejecución del mismo serán
tocados en los otros acápites.
Se encontraron las siguientes observaciones:
- Falta de diálogo entre el ingeniero estructural y el ingeniero encargado de la

construcción: No se aplican los principios de constructabilidad.
- Olvidos o detalles omitidos en las estructuras del proyecto, siendo la rectificación

de los mismos, motivo para solicitarlo como un adicional al proyecto inicial.
- Muchas de las estructuras de placas delgadas de concreto analizadas no

facilitaban el proceso constructivo debido a la gran cantidad de detalles, cortes y
complejidades que poseían. Por decir algo, en lugar de poseer vigas chatas en los
bordes de las losas que facilitaran la colocación de frisos, se presentaban vigas
peraltadas que lo único que hacían era prolongar el proceso de colocación de
encofrado, incrementar el trabajo contributorio y disminuir la productividad
evaluada. Si bien es cierto esta modificación no se puede realizar en obra sin que
incurra en alguna demora, es posible hacerla en planos.
66
- También se notó en muchas de las obras que no presentaban plantas de la

estructura simétrica, lo cual hubiera facilitado mucho el proceso constructivo y el
incremento de la curva de aprendizaje de la mano de obra.
3. Respecto al Nivel de Integración de los subcontratos
En general, tras realizar la presente investigación se pudo apreciar que hay un

deficiente manejo de las relaciones con los subcontratistas, en donde se pudo
corroborar, como ya se hacia presagiar, que el principal criterio de discernimiento entre
una opción y otra es el precio directo de la actividad subcontratada.
Esto quiere decir que en la mayoría de los casos la propuesta más económica es la
que suele ganar el negocio.
Entraremos en detalle en estos temas, listando los problemas más frecuentes que
encontramos durante el desarrollo de las mediciones:
• Criterio de selección de subcontratistas básicamente subordinado a la

propuesta económica más barata.
• Visión corto-placistaii por parte del contratista general ya que sólo trata de
obtener un beneficio esporádico en su obra a través de conseguir un precio
barato para una actividad, sin valorar el efecto positivo de establecer algún tipo
de relación estratégica a largo plazo con alguna de sus empresas
subcontratistas.
• Poca participación del subcontratista en la planificación y toma de decisiones.

Esta subordinación opaca la posibilidad de aprovechar la experiencia del
subcontratista en su campo para beneficio de la obra.
• La falta de incentivos o la presencia de incentivos negativos. Por ejemplo el

porcentaje del contrato que se retiene como garantía de que el trabajo se va a
realizar conforme al contrato y en el plazo establecido es en algunos casos
ii
Se refiere a una visión centrada en la contratación de personal por el tiempo de duración del
proyecto.
67
motivo de discusión. Y dado que todo el riesgo es asumido por el

subcontratista, es éste quien suele llevar la peor parte.
Dentro del rubro de subcontratos, quisimos analizar de manera particular a aquellos

que sólo aportan mano de obra, debido a que son los que tienen mayor participación
en las obras:
Se aprecia en este tipo de subcontratistas mucha informalidad. La razón por la

cual trabajar con estas empresas resulta más barato que trabajar con personal
propio reside en que estas empresas no suelen tener a su gente en planilla (un
operario contratado en planilla suele costar hasta 50% más que uno
subcontratado). Dado el bajo precio con el que ganan, se ven obligados a
buscar la manera de obtener ganancias de cualquier forma, siendo lo usual:
• Pagando menos a sus trabajadores.
• Contratando personal de menor categoría de la requerida dado que es más

barato.
• Contratando mano de obra no especializada. Esto es que una misma

persona de una categoría determinada puede estar realizando distintas
labores como por ejemplo de carpintero, de fierrero, entre otras.
• Es mucho más importante la producción ya que como se les suele pagar a

todo costo (un precio fijo por una tarea establecida) y no por horas hombres,
les conviene terminar su labor de la forma más rápida posible. Esto puede
comprometer otras actividades por ejemplo cuando se trabaja con un tren de
obra en donde es necesario respetar la secuencia de avance.
• El mismo hecho de querer acabar su actividad de forma apresurada no les

permite tener un control adecuado del uso de los materiales lo cual ocasiona
pérdidas a los contratistas. Según un documento publicado por Lucio
68
Soibelmaniii (2000) menciona que a mayor desperdicio se obtiene menor

productividad.
• Además, definitivamente se va a ejercer una influencia negativa en la calidad.

El hecho de tener trabajadores mal pagados ocasiona que se ejecuten las
labores sólo por avanzar. Es por tal motivo que es muy importante el control
porque de esa forma se pueden identificar y prever problemas posteriores.
iii
Lucio Soibelman presentó el documento “Material de desperdicio en la industria de la
construcción: incidencia y control” en la conferencia presentada en el VII Simposium de
Ingeniería Civil, en el Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, Méjico, en
Marzo del 2000
69
VI. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIONES
El tema de productividad se ha hecho más conocido en los últimos años, pero son muy
pocas las empresas que la aplican constantemente a fin de aprovechar mejor sus
recursos. El mercado de la construcción se ha incrementado y con él, han surgido
nuevas pequeñas empresas, las cuales normalmente están encabezadas por algún
inversionista que no es ingeniero civil o desconoce del tema y, por lo tanto, carece del
interés profesional en los temas de productividad y en su aplicación para la reducción
de costos de construcción. Generalmente se realiza simplemente un estudio
económico a corto plazo sin considerar que es mejor establecer una relación costo –
beneficio a largo plazo en donde se evalúen los pros y contras de una propuesta dada.
Si bien hemos definido productividad en relación a la mano de obra, es necesario
comprender que dicho término es bastante más amplio y que en sí el ser más
productivo consiste en eliminar la mayor cantidad de pérdidas a fin de obtener un
mejor resultado: ganar más dinero.
Por citar un ejemplo, puede resultar más económico el contratar a un ingeniero de
campo dedicado a evaluar temas de manejo de producción y de personal; en lugar de
prescindir de él y dejar a la obra sin control o al mando de personal no capacitado.
Esto último puede derivar en pérdidas “escondidas”, como trabajos rehechos, mayor
uso de materiales y mano de obra en dichos trabajos, insatisfacción del cliente,
servicio post-venta continuo, etc.
Las conclusiones que se presentan a continuación enfocan los 2 temas analizados
(Tipo de Estructura y Nivel de Integración de los Subcontratos) tomando como punto
de referencia y objetivo fundamental la mejora en la productividad.
1. Respecto al Tipo de estructura
Pese a que asumimos que las obras de placas de concreto iban a obtener un mayor
tiempo productivo debido a que éstas facilitaban el proceso constructivo, se observó
que en realidad no difiere en mucho el construir un edificio de forma aporticada, en
comparación con los edificios de muros de albañilería o con placas de concreto.
Dentro de las causas posibles de este resultado tenemos:
- Las obras de albañilería suelen tener mayor tiempo productivo debido a que
70
cuando se analizaba al personal que asentaba ladrillos, éste realizaba dicha labor
constantemente sin necesidad de realizar muchos viajes ni transportes lo que se
veía reflejado en un mayor tiempo productivo. Además las obras de albañilería
eran por lo general obras pequeñas.
- Las obras de concreto por lo general eran obras más grandes. Se analizaron obras
de varios pisos, como obras que incluían varios módulos de edificios más
pequeños. Esto ocasionaba que las mediciones arrojaban altos porcentajes en
transportes y viajes debido al tamaño del proyecto.
Estos dos puntos podrían indicar que para este caso particular se requiere de un
mayor detalle en la forma de la obtención de los datos ya que se aprecia claramente la
influencia del tamaño de la obra, la forma del terreno, entre otros.
Por otro lado, salvando las limitaciones del indicador escogido para analizar la
productividad, se puede afirmar a partir de lo observado en las visitas que las
estructuras no se están diseñando bajo el concepto de constructabilidad, de modo de
hacer más fácil la construcción del edificio.
Para remediar esto, es importante designar al ingeniero residente del proyecto desde
la concepción del mismo, de modo que pueda participar en la elaboración de los
planos desde la arquitectura. Su experiencia en construcción podrá ayudar a detectar
errores en el papel antes de sorprenderse en obra y a que el diseño final resulte más
económico para construir. La compatibilización de los planos de las instalaciones con
la estructura y la arquitectura también debería llevarla a cabo él mismo en conjunto
con los especialistas involucrados.
También es importante resaltar que la mayoría de construcciones visitadas estaban

relacionadas con el programa Mi Vivienda, el cual propone brindar al público viviendas
a un bajo costo.
Tendiendo esta premisa, es necesario el compromiso de los arquitectos de plantear
diseños que promuevan el uso de sistemas constructivos sencillos y rápidos. Esto es,
diseñando ambientes modulares que permitan el uso de alguna tecnología en
particular (por decir el uso de ambientes de dimensiones múltiplos de 60 cm de modo
de poder utilizar encofrado metálico de dicha dimensión) o de algún material de
71
acabado específico (por ejemplo ya que los muros pueden ser múltiplos de 60 cm, se
puede utilizar algún cerámico de 30 x 30 a fin de eliminar retazos, cortes y facilitar la
colocación de las piezas). También es preciso establecer la mayor simetría posible
respecto de los ejes principales de la estructura para poder utilizar la misma cantidad
de recursos en cada sector escogido así como para desarrollar la curva de aprendizaje
del personal ya que a partir de estructuras simétricas se puede alcanzar una mayor
cantidad de actividades repetitivas.
1. Respecto al Nivel de Integración de los subcontratos
En líneas generales y tras analizar los resultados obtenidos se aprecia que existe una
relación directa entre el grado de integración y la productividad de la mano de obra lo
cual confirma nuestra hipótesis referente a este tema.
Si observamos la Tabla Nº13A se puede observar que la mayoría de empresas (80.73

%) se encuentra clasificada como TIPO III, lo cual no es muy alentador. Sin embargo
nos indica que tenemos un gran potencial de desarrollo en este tema.
De todos lo problemas encontrados y mencionados en el capítulo anterior referente a

la identificación y descripción de las pérdidas encontradas, el tema del criterio de
selección es el que consideramos más importante.
Por lo general la propuesta más económica suele ser la ganadora, lo cual creemos,
bajo ciertas consideraciones, correcto y lógico. La diferencia radica en los criterios de
evaluación que se contemplan, vale decir, en lo que el cliente valora y por lo que está
dispuesto a pagar.
Como se menciona en palabras de John Ruskin (1860) en el reporte Accelerating

Change: “Es tonto pagar demasiado, pero es peor pagar muy poco. Cuando pagas
mucho se pierde un poco de dinero y eso es todo. Cuando pagas poco, algunas veces
puedes perderlo todo, porque lo adquirido es incapaz de cumplir el objetivo para el que
fue comprado. La ley común del equilibrio de los negocios prohíbe pagar poco y perder
mucho. Si optas por la propuesta más económica, es conveniente agregar algo por el
riesgo que se corre. Si haces esto, tendrás suficiente para pagar por algo mejor”.
72
Esto quiere decir que se debe poner mayor énfasis en el modo de selección de las
subcontratas con las que se va a trabajar.
En un estudio realizado en Chile por Sergio Maturana, Luis Alarcón y Mladen

Vrsalovic, en donde se muestran características de la relación con los subcontratistas
muy similares a las de nuestra realidad, se propone un sistema de evaluación en
campo en donde se pone énfasis a los siguientes puntos:
• La participación de los subcontratistas debe iniciarse antes de la formulación

del plan maestro del proyecto a fin de poder aprovechar su conocimiento.
• Una vez iniciados los trabajos, se debe realizar una evaluación continua de la
labor de cada subcontratista, al final de la cual se les debe de transmitir los
resultados obtenidos a fin de crear retroalimentación en el proceso de
conocimiento y poder producir mejoras. Incluso menciona que se debería crear
una herramienta de visualización en donde se puedan observar los resultados
de la evaluación, a fin de estimular la competitividad entre los subcontratistas y
promover una acción proactiva en lugar de reactiva por parte de los mismos.
Esta herramienta debe actuar como un recordatorio y como un medio de
difusión de información. Además debe ser fácil de interpretar ya que de ello
dependerá el efecto que tenga en la gente.
• Es necesario establecer un criterio adecuado para medir el desempeño. Aquí

en Perú, en donde no existe una cultura de mediciones, un análisis subjetivo es
adecuado.
• Es recomendable establecer un sistema de premios para los subcontratistas

con mejor desempeño. Esto favorecerá la competencia entre ellos y mejorará
su desempeño.
• Es muy importante la comunicación para mantener la coordinación entre las

partes involucradas.
La aplicación de estos criterios favorecerán el desempeño de los integrantes del
73
equipo, permitirán identificar mejoras para la administración de subcontratas, generará

una base de datos con sus desempeños y fomentará la aplicación de benchmarkingi.
En resumidas cuentas esta propuesta engloba las características mostradas para el

TIPO I en nuestra clasificación de subcontratos. Lo que falta recalcar es la ventaja que
conlleva mantener una relación a largo plazo como lo propone el concepto del
Partnering. Los subcontratistas seleccionados bajo el sistema de clasificación y
evaluación propuesto permitirán, como se menciona, un desarrollo para ambas partes.
Sin embargo, algo que no se menciona en dicha investigación pero que consideramos
de vital importancia es que el contratista debe participar como un ente regulador y
organizador de todas las labores de los subcontratistas ya que, es inevitable que cada
uno de los participantes del proyecto tienda a buscar su propio beneficio lo cual puede
significar que perjudique de alguna u otra forma los trabajos de los demás.
Es pues el contratista general, quien debe encargarse de llevar las riendas del
proyecto y de procurar que la labor de cada uno de los involucrados funcione como
piezas de engranaje, todos orientados hacia un mismo fin. Para esto son muy
importantes las herramientas propuestas por Ballard, tales como el Look Ahead
Planning o la programación semanal, las cuales tienen como fin proporcionar
confiabilidad a la programación de la obra bajo un concepto muy sencillo: para que
una actividad pueda llevarse a cabo, deben superarse todas sus restricciones.
i
El benchmark es una técnica utilizada para medir el rendimiento de un sistema o parte de un sistema,
frecuentemente en comparación con algún parámetro de referencia. También puede encontrarse como
benchmarking, el cual se refiere específicamente a la acción de ejecutar un benchmark.
74
2. Propuestas para investigaciones futuras
Como se ha mencionado repetidas veces en este proyecto, si bien se justifica el uso

de un método subjetivo para la medición de la productividad, seria recomendable
implementar un sistema de medición más específico de modo de poder obtener
resultados más concretos.
Ya en otros países se ha tomado la iniciativa mediante la formación de instituciones

encargadas de realizar la toma de datos y de publicar los resultados con el fin de crear
conocimiento. Por ejemplo en el Reino Unido, las empresas DTI (Department of Trade
and Industry) y CBPP (Construction Best Practice Programme) realizan anualmente
publicaciones de los resultados tales como productividad entre otros en dicho país.
Con esto se logra tener no sólo un historial del desarrollo del indicador analizado sino
que se puede reconocer el efecto directo de alguna práctica establecida.
Esto se realiza a través de los llamados “proyectos de demostración” (demonstration

projects) con el fin de aplicar alguna propuesta dada, analizar los resultados y
publicarlos a fin de tener respuestas concretas.
De la misma forma se podría actuar aquí, aplicando las propuestas establecidas en

este proyecto, analizando los resultados e identificando si se ha generado alguna
mejora.
Este tipo de metodología de generación de conocimiento también sería útil para

comparar procedimientos o para discernir entre la aplicación de alguna tecnología
específica en un caso determinado.
Para esto no sólo se requiere del apoyo de instituciones privadas sino también del
estado.
Lamentablemente, algo que pudimos observar durante nuestra investigación es el

recelo que poseen algunas de las empresas a que se divulguen sus procedimientos
utilizados o su metodología para dirigir el proyecto. La negativa de las empresas
dificultaba la toma de datos ya que se perdía mucho tiempo buscando de personas
75
interesadas que apoyen al proyecto.
Si es que de verdad queremos generar un cambio en la forma como se construye en

nuestro país, es necesario que todos los involucrados colaboremos, que en la medida
de lo posible compartamos nuestras experiencias para que a largo plazo nos veamos
beneficiados todos.
Consideramos que para resolver muchos de los problemas que surgen en obra, no es
necesario descubrir la pólvora ya que probablemente dichos problemas ya se han
presentado en algún otro proyecto.
Por otra parte, se encontró un punto en el que el IP requiere de mayor detalle para
obtener un resultado más real, desde el punto de vista de la productividad de mano de
obra. Para salvar este inconveniente es necesario realizar una subclasificación de los
tipos de estructura, haciendo la diferenciación según el tamaño del terreno, cantidad
pisos que tiene el edificio, etc. Es decir, para poder comparar, en términos de
productividad, un sistema aporticado y uno de muros de concreto, debemos medirlos
en condiciones iguales o similares.
Asimismo, se podría determinar si existe un punto de inflexión, es decir, un caso en el

cual los dos sistemas tienen igual valor del IP, y en casos superiores e inferiores, es
uno el que desataca sobre el otro.
En cuanto a subcontratos, se puede realizar la evaluación de los mismos con el nivel

de detalle que utilizamos para la empresa contratista en la tesis presente. Es decir,
evaluar la tecnología, gestión y productividad de distintas actividades que son
subcontratadas, de modo de obtener una calificación final que indique al contratista la
mejor opción para las exigencias de su proyecto.
76
Tesis de productividad, subcontratos y tipos de estructura BIBLIOGRAFIA
III BIBLIOGRAFIA
ROGERS P. (2005) Improving Construction Logistics
ORIHUELA P., ORIHUELA J. (2004) Constructabilidad en pequeños proyectos

inmobiliarios. http://www.pucp.edu.pe/secc/civil/pdf/orihuela.pdf.
BJÖRAFOT A., STERHN L., (2004) Industrialization of construction – A Lean modular

approach. 12th annual Lean Construction
CHANG A., PEI LEE K. (2004) Nature of Construction Technology. Acta de la 12da
Conferencia Anual organizada por el IGLC, Elsinore, Dinamarca.
BERTELSEN S., KOSKELA L. (2004) Nature of Construction Technology. Acta de la

12da Conferencia Anual organizada por el IGLC, Elsinore, Dinamarca.
PERCUL L. (2003) Estudio sectorial: Productividad en la construcción.

http://www.cema.edu.ar/productividad/download/2003/percul.pdf.
SHIMIZU J., CARDOSO F. (2002) Subcontracting and Cooperation Network in Building

Construction: A Literature Rewiew. Acta de la 10ma Conferencia Anual Organizada
por el IGLC, Gramado – Brasil.
EGAN J. (2002) Accelerating Change
BERTELSEN S. (2002) Towards and understanding of lean construction, Bridging the

gaps.
BALLARD H. (2000) The Last Planner System of Production Control. Tesis presentada
a la Facultad de Ingeniería de la Universidad de Birmingham para el grado de Doctor
de Filosofía.
SOIBELMAN L, (2000) Material de Desperdicio en la Industria de la Construcción:

Incidencia y Control
77
Tesis de productividad, subcontratos y tipos de estructura BIBLIOGRAFIA
HOWELL G. (1999) What is Lean Construction
EGAN J. (1998) Rethinking Construction
KOSKELA L. (1992) Application of the new production philosophy to construction

CIFE Technical Report №72 , Stanford University.
GHIO V. (1997) Guía para la innovación tecnológica en la construcción. Ediciones

Universidad Católica de Chile.
HAROLD KOONTZ / HEINZ WEIHRICH (9na Edición) Administración
NAYDA MORALES & JOHN GALEAS (2006) Diagnóstico y evaluación de la relación

entre el grado de industrialización y el tipo de Gestión de la administración con el nivel
de productividad en obras de construcción.
78
PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATOLICA DEL PERU
FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS E INGENIERIA
“DIAGNOSTICO Y EVALUACION DEL TIPO DE ESTRUCTURA Y DEL

GRADO DE INTEGRACION ENTRE SUBCONTRATISTA Y CONTRATISTA
CON LA PRODUCTIVIDAD”
ANEXOS
CRISTHIAN CAÑA RAMOS

PEDRO A. ESCAJADILLO IRING
Lima, Agosto 2006

INDICE
ANEXO 01:
Justificación estadística de la muestra de obras tomada ........................... i
ANEXO 02:
Formatos empleados durante la investigación ........................................... iii
ANEXO 03:
Formato de Informe Final de Obra ............................................................. xvi
ANEXO 04:
Cuadro de Clasificación de obras por Nivel de Integración........................ xix
ANEXO 01:
Justificación estadística de la muestra de obras tomada
El propósito de un estudio estadístico es extraer conclusiones acerca de la

naturaleza de una población. Al ser la población grande y no poder ser estudiada
en su integridad, se realiza el estudio a una parte de la población lo que
denominamos “muestra”.
Para el presente estudio partimos de que nuestra población son: LAS OBRAS DE
EDIFICACIONES PARA VIVIENDA EN ETAPA DE CASCO ESTRUCTURAL
realizadas en LIMA METROPOLITANA POR EMPRESAS FORMALMENTE
CONSTITUIDAS, las cuales asumimos como INFINITAS.
A partir de los datos obtenidos en las mediciones, asumiendo una confiabilidad del
95%, fuimos calculando el error máximo; concluyendo que, con 26 obras logramos
un error aceptable, como se muestra a continuación:
Cálculos Realizados
Para el cálculo del intervalo de confianza en una población normal como es la
nuestra, tomamos como parámetros:
♦ Nivel de confiabilidad de 95%

♦ Coeficiente de confiabilidad z1- /2= 1.96 1
♦ Cantidad de datos tomados n = 26
Hallamos la desviación estándar de nuestra muestra, resultando:

2
1 n ⎛ _
⎞
σ= ∑ ⎜
n − 1 i =1 ⎝
x i − x ⎟
⎠
2
σ = 4.96%
1
Coeficiente que depende del nivel de confiabilidad buscado, para este caso según tablas (que se pueden encontrar
en el anexo) para un nivel de confiabilidad del 95% el coeficiente resulta 1.96
2
Estadística Aplicaciones Tercera Edición” Carlos Veliz Capuñay, Pág. 317
i
Al ser nuestra muestra infinita, hallamos el error máximo a partir de la siguiente
fórmula
σ 4.96%
ε= z1− α / 2 = 1.96 = 1.90% 3
n 26
ε = 1.90%
Al analizar el error obtenido, podemos afirmar:
Que las obras de construcción en Lima Metropolitana que estuvieron en la

etapa de casco estructural entre los meses de Abril y Agosto, tienen un
porcentaje de trabajo productivo de 31.50%, con el 95% de confiabilidad de
que este valor puede variar como máximo en 1.90%
Resumiendo:
El trabajo productivo en Lima esta entre los valores de 29.60% y 33.40%.
Tomemos en cuenta que para el presente estudio se asumió una cantidad infinita
de obras, lo cual dista de la realidad. El cambio de una cantidad infinita a otra finita
se reflejaría en una disminución del intervalo de variación.
Además el estudio actual fue realizado de manera estratificada, donde se dividió a

la población en distritos, comenzando el análisis en los distritos de mayor
incidencia de obras; datos que los obtuvimos a partir de páginas publicadas en el
Portal de MiVivienda, este Tipo de Muestreo Estratificado, mejora la confiabilidad
de los resultados.
3
Estadística Aplicaciones Tercera Edición” Carlos Veliz Capuñay, Pág. 320
ii
ANEXO 02:
Formatos empleados durante la investigación
Los formatos empleados son los siguientes:
1. Formato para la medición general de obra
2. Formato de Identificación de Obra
3. Formato Encuesta dirigido al personal técnico y administrativo
4. Formato Encuesta dirigida a obreros y capataces
5. Formato de entrevista para subcontratistas y proveedores
6. Formato de entrevista para subcontratistas pequeños
iii
FORMATO PARA MEDICION GENERAL DE OBRA
Obra Clima:
Fecha: Encargado de Medición:
Inicio: Condiciones Iniciales:
Fin:
N° CUADRILLA TIPO N° CUADRILLA TIPO N° CUADRILLA TIPO N° CUADRILLA TIPO

1 51 101 151
2 52 102 152
3 53 103 153
4 54 104 154
5 55 105 155
6 56 106 156
7 57 107 157
8 58 108 158
9 59 109 159
10 60 110 160
11 61 111 161
12 62 112 162
13 63 113 163
14 64 114 164
15 65 115 165
16 66 116 166
17 67 117 167
18 68 118 168
19 69 119 169
20 70 120 170
21 71 121 171
22 72 122 172
23 73 123 173
24 74 124 174
25 75 125 175
26 76 126 176
27 77 127 177
28 78 128 178
29 79 129 179
30 80 130 180
31 81 131 181
32 82 132 182
33 83 133 183
34 84 134 184
35 85 135 185
36 86 136 186
37 87 137 187
38 88 138 188
39 89 139 189
40 90 140 190
41 91 141 191
42 92 142 192
43 93 143 193
44 94 144 194
45 95 145 195
46 96 146 196
47 97 147 197
48 98 148 198
49 99 149 199
50 100 150 200
iv
N° CUADRILLA TIPO N° CUADRILLA TIPO N° CUADRILLA TIPO N° CUADRILLA TIPO
201 251 301 351
202 252 302 352
203 253 303 353
204 254 304 354
205 255 305 355
206 256 306 356
207 257 307 357
208 258 308 358
209 259 309 359
210 260 310 360
211 261 311 361
212 262 312 362
213 263 313 363
214 264 314 364
215 265 315 365
216 266 316 366
217 267 317 367
218 268 318 368
219 269 319 369
220 270 320 370
221 271 321 371
222 272 322 372
223 273 323 373
224 274 324 374
225 275 325 375
226 276 326 376
227 277 327 377
228 278 328 378
229 279 329 379
230 280 330 380
231 281 331 381
232 282 332 382
233 283 333 383
234 284 334 384
235 285 335 385
236 286 336 386
237 287 337 387
238 288 338 388
239 289 339 389
240 290 340 390
241 291 341 391
242 292 342 392
243 293 343 393
244 294 344 394
245 295 345 395
246 296 346 396
247 297 347 397
248 298 348 398
249 299 349 399
250 300 350 400
Observaciones
v
CÓDIGO:
FORMATO DE IDENTIFICACIÓN DE TESISTA:
OBRA FECHA:
(FIO)
DE LA OBRA
NOMBRE:
DIRECCIÓN:
TELÉFONO: CORREO ELECTRÓNICO:
DE LA EMPRESA CONSTRUCTORA
NOMBRE:
DIRECCIÓN:
DEL INGENIERO RESIDENTE

NOMBRE:
DEL PROYECTO
TIPO DE CONTRATO:
Suma Alzada Administración Directa Precios Unitarios
Constructora - Inmobiliaria Otros:
TIPO DE ESTRUCTURA:
Muros de concreto armado Albañilería Armada/Confinada Muros de ductilidad limitada
Pórticos y tabiques Sistema Dual Otro
SECUENCIA DEL TRABAJO

Área de Losa llenada m2 cada dias
INICIO: CANTIDAD DE OBREROS:

DURACIÓN: AVANCE PROYECTO (CASCO):
PERSONAL TÉCNICO Y ADMINISTRATIVO QUE PARTICIPA EN LA PLANIFICACION

Ingeniero Residente Ingeniero Concreto Administrador
Ingeniero Supervisor Ingeniero Costos Maestro de Obra
Ingeniero Asistente Ingeniero Productividad Almacenero
Otros:
DEL PERSONAL SUBCONTRATADO

INDIQUE EL MONTO APROXIMADO DE ACTIVIDADES SUBCONTRATADAS: %
CALIFIQUE USTED LOS PRINCIPALES PROBLEMAS CON LOS SUBCONTRATISTAS:
No realizan bien su trabajo, tienen muchos errores 1 2 3 4 5
Sólo les interesa el avance 1 2 3 4 5
Desperdician material, si no lo han aportado 1 2 3 4 5
Sus errores usualmente comprometen a otras actividades 1 2 3 4 5
No participan en el planificación 1 2 3 4 5
El personal de la casa y el subcontratado no se llevan bien 1 2 3 4 5
El pago a los subcontratistas es muy bajo 1 2 3 4 5
Otros: 1 2 3 4 5
OTROS DATOS
ÁREA TOTAL DEL TERRENO: ÁREA A CONSTRUIR: Nº PISOS:
CANTIDAD DE DEPARTAMENTOS: ÁREA DE DEP: PRECIOS:
COSTO DE LA CONSTRUCCIÓN: ÁREA DE DEP: PRECIOS:
COMENTARIOS DEL TESISTA

DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROYECTO: ( dptos por piso, descripción de la estructura.)
NOTAS A LA ENTREVISTA: (Comentarios y/o añadidos del Residente)
vi
PERSONAL SUBCONTRATADO
APORTE CONTRATO CONTROL ANTIGÜEDAD
EL CONTRATO INCLUYE: CONTROL A PARTIR DE: FRECUENCIA CANTIDAD DE PROYECTOS
Mano de Obra Monto y Plazo Sanciones y/o Premios Avance Productividad Diario Primero
Mantenimiento
Carpintería Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Diseño Especificaciones No hay Contrato Costos No hay Control Quincenal Más de 2
Mantenimiento
Acero Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
Inst. Eléctricas Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
Inst. Sanitarias Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
Inst. Mecánicas Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
Estr. Metálicas Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
vii
Mantenimiento
Mov. de Tierras Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
Albañilería Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
Tarrajeo Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
Mayólicas Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
_____________ Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
Mantenimiento
_____________ Materiales Metrado Otros:____________________ Recursos Otros__________ Semanal Segundo
____________
TECNOLOGÍAS EN LA OBRA
RUBRO / TECNOLOGÍA ¿ LO TIENE? CANTIDAD ¿NECESITA?

ACERO
CONVENCIONAL
DIMENSIONADO
MALLA ELECTROSOLDADA (MURO)
MALLA ELECTROSOLDADA (TECHO)
OTROS:
ENCOFRADOS
ENCOFRADO METÁLICO
OTROS:
CONCRETO (PREPARACIÓN)
MEZCLADORA ESTACIONARIA
CONCRETO PREMEZCLADO
CONCRETO PREFABRICADO
CONCRETO POSTENSADO
CONCRETO PRETENSADO
ADITIVOS
OTROS:
CONCRETO (VACIADO)
BOMBA ESTACIONARIA
BOMBA MÓVIL
BALDE
GRÚA
VIBRADOR (GASOLINA O ELÉCTRICO)
OTROS:
MOVIMIENTO DE TIERRAS
CARGADOR FRONTAL
RETROEXCAVADORA
MOTO NIVELADORA
VOLQUETE
OTROS:
TRANSPORTE DE MATERIALES
WINCHE
ELEVADOR VERTICAL
GRÚA
DUMPER
OTROS:
COMUNICACIONES
NEXTEL O SIMILARES:
CORREO ELECTRÓNICO:
OTROS:
SOFTWARE
CONTROL DE OBRA
PROGRAMACIÓN DE OBRA
OTROS:
OTROS:
SISTEMA DE ELIMINACIÓN BASURA
ESPECIFICAR:
OTROS:
COMENTARIOS:
viii
AGENDA DE VISITA A OBRA:
ACTIVIDADES: CÓDIGO VECES

MEDICIÓN DE NIVEL GENERAL DE OBRA NGO 5
MEDICIÓN DE NIVEL GENERAL DE ACTIVIDAD: NGA INDICAR: _____
NGA INDICAR: _____
NGA INDICAR: _____
FORMATO DE IDENTIFICACIÓN DE OBRA Y RESIDENTE FIO 1
FORMATO DE ENCUENTA PARA PERSONAL TÉCNICO Y ADMINISTRATIVO (PLANIFICACIÓN) FEPETA INDICAR: _____
FORMATO DE ENCUENTA PARA PERSONAL OBRERO Y CAPATACES FEDOC 8
SEMANA 1
LUNES MARTES MIÉRCOLES JUEVES VIERNES SÁBADO
HORA: HORA: HORA: HORA: HORA: HORA:
ACTIVIDAD: ACTIVIDAD: ACTIVIDAD: ACTIVIDAD: ACTIVIDAD: ACTIVIDAD:

ix
SEMANA 2
LUNES MARTES MIÉRCOLES JUEVES VIERNES SÁBADO


Horarios para las Encuestas: OBSERVACIONES Y/O RECOMENDACIONES: (Comentarios y/o añadidos del Tesista)
FEPETA:
FEDOC:
FORMATO ENCUESTA DIRIGIDA AL PERSONAL TÉCNICO Y ADMINISTRATIVO
(FEPETA)
(NO LLENAR)
CÓDIGO DE LA OBRA: NUMERO ENCUESTA:
(ESTA ENCUESTA ES TOTALMENTE ANÓNIMA Y ES PROPIEDAD DEL GRUPO DE TESIS )
PLANIFICACIÓN Y EJECUCIÓN DEL PROYECTO

1. INDIQUE EL CARGO QUE DESEMPEÑA EN LA EMPRESA:
2. ¿QUÉ TIPO DE PLANIFICACIÓN SE REALIZA EN LA OBRA Y QUE COMPRENDE CADA UNA?

General
Mediano Plano
Corto Plazo
Otro
3. ¿CÓMO SE TRANSMITE LA INFORMACIÓN DE LA PLANIFICACIÓN A LOS JEFES DE OBRA? (verbal o escrita)
Nivel de detalle Maestro Capataces

Recursos a utilizar
Lugar de trabajo
Plazo
Otros
4. ¿SE DISEÑAN PROCEDIMIENTOS CONSTRUCTIVOS Y CUÁLES SON?

Ninguno
Solo los procedimientos complicados
Las partidas con alta incidencia en el presupuesto
Algunas operaciones como:
4.1 ¿QUIÉN O QUIENES SON LOS ENCARGADOS DEL DISEÑO?

Residente Otro:
Maestro de Obra
5. ¿QUIÉN ESTÁ ENCARGADO DE PLANIFICAR LA UTILIZACIÓN DE LOS RECURSOS? (marque con un CHECK)
CARGO M.O. MAT. EQUIPO

Ingeniero Residente
Ingeniero Asistente
Administrador
Maestro
Otro:
6. ¿A PARTIR DE QUE INFORMACIÓN SE REALIZA LA PLANIFICACIÓN?

Según experiencia del Residente
Por rendimientos mínimos
Por rendimientos históricos de la empresa
Otros:
7. ¿QUIÉN ES EL ENCARGADO DE LA DISTRIBUCIÓN DE RECURSOS?

Solo el Maestro de Obra
El Maestro de Obra en coordinación con el residente
Otros:
x
SEGUIMIENTO Y CONTROL
1. REALIZA CONTROLES EN LA OBRA
Si No
SI LA RESPUESTA ES SI, ¿CÓMO LO CONTROLA?
FRECUENCIA
MODO DE CONTROL
SEMANAL QUINCENAL MENSUAL AL FINAL
Informe de costos
Informes de avance
Recorridos por la obra
Reuniones
Informe de productividad
Informe de calidad
Otros:______________
Otros:______________
2. ¿ES ACTUALIZADA LA PLANIFICACIÓN DESPUÉS QUE SE REALIZA? Si

No
SI LA RESPUESTA ES NO, ¿POR QUE?
SI LA RESPUESTA ES SI, ¿CON QUE FRECUENCIA?

Diariamente Semanalmente Otro:
A PARTIR DE QUE DATOS SE EJECUTA LA ACTUALIZACIÓN DE LA PLANIFICACIÓN

Rendimientos Avance Otro:
3. SI SURGE UN ATRASO, USUALMENTE SE SOLUCIONA:

Haciendo que los trabajadores se queden horas extra
Trabajando los Domingo y/o feriados
Se acepta el atraso y se hace una nueva planificación
Otro:
4. ¿EN QUE ACTIVIDADES SE CONSUME LA MAYOR CANTIDAD DE HORAS EXTRA?

Vaciado de concreto Habilitación material Inst. Sanitarias / Eléctricas
Encofrado Colocación Acero Otro:
5. ¿CUAL O CUALES CREE USTED QUE SON LOS PROBLEMAS MAS COMUNES QUE GENERAN LOS ATRASOS?
(marque con un CHECK)
PROBLEMA
Abastecimiento
Descoordinaciones
Subcontratos
Rendimientos, (mdo)
Sindicatos
Maquinaria
Otros:____________________________________
6. CUANDO LOS PROBLEMAS SON DESCUBIERTOS, SE PROCEDE A:

Reparar los defectos y seguir adelante
Se averiguan las causas del problema y se actúa para prevenir problemas futuros
Aclaramos el porqué no nos dimos cuenta temprano y rediseñamos la forma de ejecutar el trabajo
para poder actuar rápido sobre problemas similares en el futuro.
Analizamos el problema y lo tomamos como experiencia para el futuro
Identificamos a responsable y tomamos las medidas respectivas
Otros:___________________________________________________________
7. ¿REALIZAN CHARLAS DE CAPACITACIÓN AL PERSONAL?

Si No
8. CON QUE FRECUENCIA SE REALIZAN

Semanales Diarias
Mensuales Otras
xi
FORMATO ENCUESTA DIRIGIDA A OBREROS Y CAPATACES
(FEDOC)
Encargado de la mediciòn: Fecha

Hora
(NO LLENAR)
CÓDIGO DE LA OBRA: NUMERO ENCUESTA:
(ESTA ENCUESTA ES TOTALMENTE ANÓNIMA Y ES PROPIEDAD DEL GRUPO DE TESIS)
1. INDIQUE LA CUADRILLA A LA QUE PERTENECE

Concreto Encofrado Acero
Albañilería Revoques Otro:
2. INDIQUE SU RANGO:
Peón Oficial Operario
Capataz Otro:
3. INDIQUE SU SISTEMA DE TRABAJO

Por avance (jornada) Horario
Por tareas
40 o menos
Entre 40 o 50
50 o menos
Otro:
5. ¿TRABAJA HORAS EXTRA? Si No
SI TRABAJA HORAS EXTRA, ¿CUANTAS SEMANALMENTE?
6. USTED ES PERSONAL SUBCONTRATADO

Si No
7. SI USTED ES PERSONAL SUBCONTRATADO:
7.1. SI USTED ES PERSONAL SUBCONTRATADO, ¿HA TRABAJADO ANTES CON LA MISMA EMPRESA?
Si, llevamos trabajando varios proyectos No, este es el primer proyecto
Si, este es el segundo proyecto juntos
7.2. SI USTED ES PERSONAL SUBCONTRATADO, MARQUE LOS PROBLEMAS MAS FRECUENTES:

No estoy enterado del contrato que se firmó con el contratista o éste no existe
No me pagan lo adecuado
No me pagan a tiempo
El personal "de la casa" es hostil
Otros:
8. PRESENTA ALGÚN PROBLEMA CON LOS MATERIALES

Si No
9. EN CASO TENGA ALGÚN PROBLEMA CON LOS MATERIALES:
9.1. ¿QUÉ HACE SI NO TIENE MATERIAL A LA MANO?

Lo busco en almacén Se lo comunico al Jefe de cuadrilla
Debo esperarlo Se lo comunico al Maestro de Obra
Hago otra labor Se lo comunico al Ingeniero
Otros:
xii
9.2. ¿CUÁNTO TIEMPO A LA SEMANA CALCULA QUE PIERDE POR NO TENER SUS MATERIALES A LA MANO?
Menos de 1 hora De 4 a 7 horas
De 1 a 3 horas Más de 7 horas
9.3. ¿POR QUÉ CREE USTED QUE NO TIENE LISTOS SUS MATERIALES?
El material no llega a la obra a tiempo Debo esperar que la grúa/winche lo transporte
El material no está en almacén Otros:
No se me informa la labor que debo realizar
9.4. SI DEPENDIESE DE USTED, ¿CÓMO ARREGLARÍA LA FALTA DE MATERIALES?

Delegaría a alguien la tarea de observar qué materiales se requerirán para las labores del día siguiente
Pediría que los materiales estén en obra con suficiente anticipación
Planificaría las labores diarias de cada cuadrilla, para evitar problemas de abastecimiento de materiales
Otros:
10. TIENE ALGÚN PROBLEMA CON LAS HERRAMIENTAS:

Si No
11. EN CASO PRESENTE ALGÚN PROBLEMA CON LAS HERRAMIENTAS:
11.1. ¿QUÉ HACE SI NO TIENE SUS HERRAMIENTAS O EQUIPOS A LA MANO?

Lo busco en almacén Se lo comunico al Jefe de cuadrilla
Debo esperar que dejen de utilizarlo Se lo comunico al Maestro de Obra
Hago otra labor Se lo comunico al Ingeniero
Otros:
11.2. ¿CUÁNTO TIEMPO A LA SEMANA CALCULA QUE PIERDE POR NO TENER SUS HERRAMIENTAS A LA MANO?
Menos de 1 hora De 4 a 7 horas
De 1 a 3 horas Más de 7 horas
11.3. ¿POR QUÉ CREE USTED QUE NO TIENE LISTAS SUS HERRAMIENTAS Y/O EQUIPOS?
Las está utilizando otra cuadrilla / obrero Debo esperar que la grúa/winche los transporte
Las herramientas no está en almacén Otros:
No se me informa la labor que debo realizar
11.4. SI DEPENDIESE DE USTED, ¿CÓMO ARREGLARÍA LA FALTA DE HERRAMIENTAS Y/O EQUIPOS?

Delegaría a alguien la tarea de observar qué herramientas se requerirán para las labores del día siguiente
Compraría o alquilaría más herramientas o equipos
Planificaría las labores diarias de cada cuadrilla, para evitar problemas de abastecimiento de los equipos
Otros:
12. ¿CON CUÁLES DE SUS SUPERIORES TIENE MAYOR COMUNICACIÓN?

Jefe de cuadrilla Maestro de Obra Ingeniero Asistente
Capataz Ingeniero Residente Otro:
13. A SU PARECER, CUÁNDO OCURRE UN PROBLEMA, ¿QUIEN LO RESUELVE?

Jefe de cuadrilla Maestro de Obra Ingeniero Asistente
Capataz Ingeniero Residente Otro:
14. ¿A QUÉ HORA DE LA MAÑANA SE ENTERA DE LO QUE VA A HACER DURANTE EL DIA?

Ni bien me presento a la obra Durante la primera hora
Durante la primera media hora Otro:
15. DE QUE FORMA SE LE TRASMITE LA INFORMACIÓN

Escrita A través del panel
Oral Otro:
xiii
CÓDIGO:
FORMATO DE ENTREVISTA PARA TESISTA:
SUBCONTRATISTAS Y FECHA:
PROVEEDORES
DE LA EMPRESA
NOMBRE:
DIRECCIÓN:
DEL ENTREVISTADO
NOMBRE:
PREGUNTAS
¿ En qué consiste el servicio que brindan a las empresas ? ( Mano de obra, materiales, diseño y mantenimiento )
¿Con qué frecuencia trabaja con la misma empresa?
¿Tiene algún convenio de trabajo con alguna empresa?
¿Ha tenido algún problema con algún cliente? Cuales? Porque? (los clientes le han causado problemas)
¿Es beneficioso para usted trabajar con la misma empresa en varios proyectos?
¿Prioriza a sus clientes? Porque?
¿Qué clase de control realiza a los servicios o productos que brinda?
¿A cuantos clientes suele atender a la vez?
¿Cuál es su capacidad de atención? ( A cuantos clientes puede atender a la vez)
NOTAS A LA ENTREVISTA: (Comentarios y/o añadidos Entrevistado)
xiv
CÓDIGO:
FORMATO DE ENTREVISTA PARA
TESISTA:
SUBCONTRATISTAS PEQUEÑOS FECHA:
DE LA EMPRESA
NOMBRE:
DIRECCIÓN:
DEL ENTREVISTADO
NOMBRE:
PREGUNTAS
¿Qué aporta a la empresa ? ( Mano de obra, maquinaria, materiales, diseño y mantenimiento ) ¿Cuáles con los beneficios de su
producto?
¿Por qué cree que la empresa debe escogerlo a usted entre otros subcontratistas?
¿Con qué frecuencia trabaja con la misma empresa?

¿Tiene algún convenio de trabajo con alguna empresa?
¿Ha tenido algún problema con algún cliente? Cuales? Porque? (los clientes le han causado problemas)
¿Es beneficioso para usted trabajar con la misma empresa en varios proyectos? ¿Por qué?
¿Prioriza a sus clientes? Porque?
¿Qué clase de control realiza a los servicios o productos que brinda? ¿Trabaja en la obra o la supervisa?
¿A cuantos clientes suele atender a la vez? ¿Cuál es su capacidad de atención? ¿Tiene algún límite?
¿Cómo escoge o contrata a su personal?
Respecto a los contratos, ¿quién los realiza? ¿siente que los contratos lo perjudican? ¿Tienen sanciones o premios?
¿Participa en la planificación?
NOTAS A LA ENTREVISTA: (Comentarios y/o añadidos Entrevistado)
xv
ANEXO 03:
Formato de Informe Final de Obra
A continuación se presenta un informe de una obra medida a manera de ejemplo del

esquema utilizado en la presentación del informe final de obra, el cual era entregado a
las empresas que nos abrían las puertas a su obra.
xvi
20XXXXX INFORME FINAL: MEDICION GENERAL DE OBRA
OBRA: 20XXXXX
FECHA: Domingo, 29 de Enero de 2006 TIEMPO MEDIDO (hrs): 05:52
TESISTA: Pedro A. Escajadillo Iring
MARCO TEORICO:
La medición del nivel general de obra (NGO) es una de las herramientas clásicas del estudio de tiempos y
movimientos, utilizado comúnmente en la ingeniería industrial. Los resultados de estas mediciones indican, en
promedio, cómo está distribuido el tiempo de los trabajadores de toda la obra.
Además, considera los flujos de materiales y mano de obra que ocurren a un nivel macro de la obra y que,
comunmente, no han sido considerados al momento de planificar y/o calcular los presupuestos (estos cálculos
normalmente se realizan a nivel de actividad, es decir, a un nivel micro de la obra)
La metodología empleada consiste en recorridos de obra, en los cuales se observa y anota la actividad que
realiza cada obrero hasta completar 400 mediciones, durante cinco días a distintas horas. Cada actividad es
clasificada según su aporte a la obra, de la siguiente manera:
Trabajo Productivo (TP) Trabajo que aporta de forma directa a la producción.

Trabajo Contributorio (TC): Trabajo de apoyo, que debe ser realizado para que pueda ejecutarse
el trabajo productivo. Actividad aparentemente necesaria, pero que no
aporta valor.
Trabajo no contributorio (TNC): Trabajo que no genera valor y no contribuye a otra actividad; por lo
tanto, se considera como actividad de pérdida.
De modo explicativo, dentro de las actividades contributorias consideramos el transporte de material y/o
herramientas (T), cualquier tipo de medición (M), la limpieza (L), dar o recibir instrucciones (I) y otros
contributorios (O).
Analogamente, como trabajo no contributorio se considera los viajes sin llevar nada en las manos (V), las esperas
del personal (E), ir a los servicios higiénicos (BÑ), descansar (D), rehacer un trabajo (TR), hacer trabajos sin
valor (TO) y otras actividades no contributorias (OT).
PRESENTACION DE RESULTADOS:
A continuación presentamos los resultados promedio de las cinco mediciones realizadas en la obra:
DESCRIPCION CODIGO % PARCIAL % TOTAL

26.3%
TP
Trabajo Productivo P 26.3%

Habilitación de material HM 7.0%
Transporte de todo T 22.6%
Limpieza de todo L 5.1%
51.9%
TC
Dar y recibir instrucciones I 5.0%

Mediciones M 5.7%
Otros O 6.7%
Viajes V 13.3%
Esperas E 6.1%
Tiempo ocioso TO 0.1%
TNC
Trabajo rehecho TR 0.5% 21.8%

Descanso D 0.4%
Baños BÑ 0.0%
Otros OT 1.6%
22%
En resumen, 26%
52%
xvii
INTERPRETACION DE RESULTADOS:
En términos prácticos, obtuvimos que de las 8 horas de jornada laboral, el obrero le dedica 2 horas a actividades
productivas, 4 horas a actividades que contribuyen a las anteriores, y 2 horas a actividades que no generan valor.
COMENTARIOS:
El trabajo productivo oscila entre el 19,3% al 32,3%, siendo el promedio de 26,3%. El estudio realizado el año
2000 arrojó que la productividad promedio en Lima era de 28%, porcentaje cercano al obtenido en la obra. Se
concluye que la obra tiene un buen potencial de mejora.
El menor trabajo productivo (19,3%) se obtuvo durante el última día de medición, el cual correspondió al
encofrado del último techo. Debido a que se realizaban dos transportes en simultáneo, es decir, el transporte de
encofrados al último techo a encofrar y el transporte de los encofrados que ya no son necesarios al primer piso,
es justificable el valor. La actividad contributoria predominante fue el transporte con 22,8%.
Sobre el trabajo contributorio, podemos decir que el mayor porcentaje corresponde a la partida de transporte de
herramientas y equipos. La actividad asociada directamente con ese porcentaje es el traslado de encofrados, del
lugar de desencofrado hasta el lugar donde se debe encofrar. Se observa que el método de trabajo consiste en ir
desencofrando en un lugar, trasladarlo y encofrarlo en el otro; tanto en encofrados de losa como en encofrados
de placas.
Sobre el trabajo no contributorio, se observa que los porcentajes de espera y viajes son los mayores. En
cuanto a los viajes, éstos van de la mano con el transporte porque el ayudante parte con las manos vacías y
regresa con los materiales y/o equipos que buscaba. Normalmente, el mayor porcentaje de espera se obtiene
durante los vaciados de concreto debido a los tiempos en los que se da el cambio de mixer.
RECOMENDACIONES:
Recordamos que esta herramienta representa un diagnóstico del estado de la obra y que una propuesta de
mejora específica demandaría un estudio más exhaustivo de lo que ocurre en la obra; sin embargo, nos
permitimos presentarle a nivel de recomendación lo siguiente:
Durante las mediciones se observó una descoordinación, en cuanto a avance se refiere, entre los encofradores
de techo y los colocadores de acero de losa. Llega un momento en el que los colocadores de acero ponen las
barras de acero en lugares donde no hay encofrado de losa aún. Esto provoca que, cuando llegan los
encofradores a esa zona, ese acero colocado dificulte su trabajo.
El hecho es que ese percance se soluciona doblando los fierros para colocar el encofrado, luego de una pequeña
discusión entre las cuadrillas involucradas.
El doblar el acero es una mala práctica y se debe evitar en lo posible. Se puede recomendar que las cuadrillas de
encofrado entren a la obra una hora antes y salgan una hora antes. De ese modo, cumplen su jornada laboral y
avanzan con un mayor desfase con la cuadrilla de acero.
Respecto al alto porcentaje de trabajo contributorio responde a la misma configuración de los muros, ya que no
permiten el almacenaje de los encofrados cerca de los muros a encofrar. Normalmente se realiza la siguiente
secuencia: desencofrado - transporte - limpieza - transporte - encofrado.
Y esta secuencia se repite a lo largo del día, por lo que se registró tantas actividades contributorias.
Finalmente, nuestro grupo de tesis le agradece la oportunidad que nos brindó al abrirnos las puertas de su obra
para realizar nuestras mediciones. Si tiene algún comentario o sugerencia, le agradeceríamos escribirnos a
nuestro correo electrónico pro_tesis01@yahoo.es
xviii
ANEXO 04:
Cuadro de Clasificación de obras por Nivel de Integración
ITEMS PUNTUACION PROMEDIOS

6. PARTIC. EN TIPO
COD. PARTIDA 1. 2. 3. TIPO DE 4. 5. 7. MODO DE (PROMEDIO)
LA 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. SUMA PROM.
RIESGO CONTROL CONTRATO CONTINUIDAD COSTOS ELECCION
PLANIFICACION
MO MAT No planificacion, Sistema
Carpintería Alto Optimo Alta Bilateral 100 100 100 100 50 100 550
DIS estrategica Evaluacion
Instalaciones No planificacion, Sistema
MO Alto Optimo Inicial Bilateral 100 100 75 100 50 100 525
eléctricas estrategica Evaluacion
1 Instalaciones No planificacion, Sistema
TIPO I 544
MO Alto Optimo Alta Bilateral 100 100 100 100 50 100 550
sanitarias estrategica Evaluacion
Movimiento de No planificacion, No Sistema
MO Alto Optimo Alta Bilateral 100 100 100 100 50 100 550
tierras estrategica Evaluacion
No planificacion,
Acero MO Mediano Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 100 50 50 50 50 367
estrategica
No planificacion,
Carpintería MO Mediano Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 100 50 50 50 50 367
estrategica
Instalaciones No planificacion,
2 eléctricas
MO Mediano Optimo Nula Unilateral
estrategica
Menor costo TIPO III 67 100 50 50 50 50 367 367
MO Mediano Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 100 50 50 50 50 367
sanitarias estrategica
No planificacion,
Concreto MO Mediano Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 100 50 50 50 50 367
estrategica
Bajo o No planificacion,
Acero MO Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 100 50 50 400
ninguno estrategica
Carpintería MO MAT Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 100 50 50 400
ninguno estrategica
3 Instalaciones Bajo o No planificacion,
TIPO III 400
MO Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 100 50 50 400
eléctricas ninguno estrategica
Instalaciones Bajo o No planificacion,
MO Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 100 50 50 400
sanitarias ninguno estrategica
MO MAT Bajo o No planificacion,
4 Carpintería
DIS ninguno
Optimo Alta Unilateral
estrategica
Acero MO Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 50 50 50 350
ninguno estrategica
MO Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 50 50 50 350
xix
MO MAT
DIS Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 50 50 50 350
Mecánicas ninguno estrategica
MANT
Movimiento de Bajo o No planificacion,
tierras ninguno estrategica
Concreto MO Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 100 50 50 50 350
ninguno estrategica
No planificacion,
Encofrado MO Alto Optimo Alta Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 100 50 50 50 450
estrategica
No planificacion,
Acero MO Alto Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 50 50 50 50 400
estrategica
MO Mediano Optimo Alta Unilateral Menor costo 67 100 100 50 50 50 417
eléctricas estrategica
5 Mecánicas
MO Mediano Optimo Inicial Unilateral
estrategica
Movimiento de No planificacion,
tierras estrategica
No planificacion, No
Albañilería P7 MO MAT Alto Optimo Alta Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 100 50 50 50 450
estrategica
Tarrajeo MO Alto Optimo Alta Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 100 50 50 50 450
estrategica
Mayólica MO Alto Optimo Alta Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 100 50 50 50 450
estrategica
Carpintería MO MAT Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 50 50 50 50 300
ninguno estrategica
ninguno estrategica
TIPO III 325
Albañilería MO Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 50 50 50 50 300
ninguno estrategica
Bajo o No planificacion, No
Tarrajeo MO Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 50 50 50 50 300
ninguno estrategica
No planificacion,
7 Carpintería MO MAT Alto Formal Alta Bilateral
estrategica
Menor costo TIPO II 100 67 100 100 50 50 467 467
No planificacion,
Acero MO Alto Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 100 67 100 100 50 50 467
estrategica
MO Alto Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 100 67 100 100 50 50 467
xx
MO Alto Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 100 67 100 100 50 50 467
No planificacion, No Sistema
Albañilería P7 MO MAT Alto Optimo Nula Unilateral 100 100 50 50 50 100 450
estrategica Evaluacion
Movimiento de No planificacion, Sistema
MO Alto Optimo Inicial Unilateral 100 100 75 50 50 100 475
tierras estrategica Evaluacion
8 Instalaciones No planificacion, Sistema
TIPO II 490
MO Alto Formal Alta Bilateral 100 67 100 100 50 100 517
MO Alto Formal Alta Bilateral 100 67 100 100 50 100 517
No planificacion,
Carpintería MO MAT Mediano Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 100 100 50 50 434
estrategica
9 eléctricas
MO Mediano Formal Alta Bilateral
estrategica
MO Mediano Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 100 100 50 50 434
MO Alto Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 100 67 100 50 50 50 417
10 Movimiento de No planificacion,
TIPO III 417
tierras estrategica
Pintura MO Alto Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 100 67 100 50 50 50 417
estrategica
Movimiento de Bajo o No planificacion, No
MO Informal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 33 33 100 50 50 50 316
tierras Ninguno estrategica
11 TIPO III 316
0
12 0%
No planificacion,
Acero MO Mediano Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 100 50 50 50 384
estrategica
No planificacion,
Carpintería MO Mediano Formal Inicial Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 75 50 50 50 359
estrategica
13 eléctricas
MO Mediano Formal Alta Unilateral
estrategica
Movimiento de No planificacion,
MO MAT Mediano Formal Alta Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 100 100 50 50 434
tierras estrategica
Instalaciones No planificacion, No
MO Mediano Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 100 50 50 50 384
Planificacion,
14 Carpintería MO MAT Mediano Optimo Inicial Bilateral
estrategica
Planificacion,
Acero MO Mediano Formal Inicial Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 75 100 100 50 459
estrategica
xxi
Instalaciones Planificacion,
MO Mediano Formal Inicial Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 75 100 100 50 459
MO Mediano Formal Inicial Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 75 100 100 50 459
Movimiento de No planificacion, No
MO Mediano Formal Nula Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 100 50 50 384
tierras estrategica
Planificacion, Sistema
Carpintería MO MAT Mediano Formal Alta Unilateral 67 67 100 50 100 100 484
Instalaciones Planificacion, Sistema
18 eléctricas
TIPO II 67 67 100 50 100 100 484 484
Planificacion, no Sistema
Tarrajeo MO Mediano Formal Alta Unilateral 67 67 100 50 100 100 484
No planificacion,
Carpintería MO MAT Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 50 50 50 334
estrategica
No planificacion,
Acero MO Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 50 50 50 334
estrategica
16 eléctricas
MO Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral
estrategica
MO Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 50 50 50 334
Albañilería MO Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 50 50 50 334
estrategica
0
17 0%
0
Carpintería MO Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 50 50 50 50 300
ninguno estrategica
ninguno estrategica
TIPO III 325
MO Formal Inicial Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 75 50 50 50 325
MO Formal Inicial Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 75 50 50 50 325
No planificacion,
Acero MO MAT Mediano Optimo Alta Bilateral Menor costo 67 100 100 100 50 50 467
estrategica
19 eléctricas
MO Mediano Optimo Alta Bilateral
estrategica
MO Mediano Optimo Nula Bilateral Menor costo 67 100 50 100 50 50 417
Acero MO Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 50 50 50 50 300
20 ninguno estrategica TIPO III 300
21 0% 0
xxii
No planificacion,
Carpintería MO Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 50 50 50 334
estrategica
No planificacion,
Acero MO Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 50 50 50 334
estrategica
22 eléctricas
estrategica
MO Mediano Formal Alta Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 100 50 50 50 384
Albañilería P7 MO Mediano Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 50 50 50 334
estrategica
MO Alto Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 50 50 100 50 450
MO Alto Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 50 50 100 50 450
23 Planificacion,
TIPO III 450
Albañilería MO Alto Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 50 50 100 50 450
estrategica
Planificacion,
Estructuras MO Alto Optimo Nula Unilateral Menor costo 100 100 50 50 100 50 450
estrategica
Albañilería P7 MO MAT Mediano Formal Nula Bilateral Menor costo 67 67 50 100 50 50 384
24 estrategica TIPO III 384

MO MAT Mediano Formal Alta Bilateral 67 67 100 100 100 100 534
MO Mediano Formal Alta Bilateral 67 67 100 100 100 100 534
25 Movimiento de
MO Mediano Formal Nula Bilateral
Planificacion,
Menor costo TIPO II 67 67 50 100 100 50 434 463
tierras estrategica
Bajo o Planificacion,
Acero MO MAT Formal Nula Unilateral Menor costo 33 67 50 50 100 50 350
ninguno estrategica

MO MAT Mediano Optimo Nula Bilateral 67 100 50 100 50 100 467
MO MAT Mediano Optimo Nula Bilateral 67 100 50 100 50 100 467
26 Albañilería P7 MO MAT Mediano Optimo Nula Bilateral
No planificacion, No Sistema TIPO II 67 100 50 100 50 100 467 467
No planificacion, No Sistema
Mayólica MO Mediano Optimo Nula Bilateral 67 100 50 100 50 100 467
xxiii
Accelerating
Change
A report by the
Strategic Forum for Construction
Chaired by Sir John Egan
Strategic Forum Membership - Chairman Sir John Egan
British Property Federation (BPF)
Commission for Architecture and the Built
Environment (CABE)
Confederation of Construction Clients (CCC)
Construction Confederation (CC)
Construction Industry Council (CIC)
Construction Industry Training Board (CITB)
Construction Products Association (CPA)
Construction Research and Innovation Strategy
Panel (CRISP)
Constructors Liaison Group (CLG)
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Design Build Foundation/Reading Construction
Forum (DBF/RCF)
Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
Housing Forum (HF)
Local Government Task Force (LGTF)
Major Contractors Group (MCG)
Movement for Innovation (M4I)
Office of Government Commerce (OGC)
Rethinking Construction (RC)
Trades Union Congress (TUC)
Secretariat
Dwight Demorais - Technical Consultant (AVPP)
Dr Rodger Evans - Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI)
Contents
5 Foreword by
Brian Wilson MP, Minister for Construction
7 Statement by
Sir John Egan, Chairman, Strategic Forum for Construction
8 Key Measures to Accelerate Change
10 Vision
Chapter 1
12 Rethinking Construction
Chapter 2
14 Progress since Rethinking Construction
Chapter 3
19 Strategic Direction and Targets
Chapter 4
20 Accelerating Client Leadership
Chapter 5
24 Accelerating Supply Side Integration and Integrated Teams
Chapter 6
29 Accelerating Culture Change in 'People Issues'
Chapter 7
35 Cross-Cutting Issues
Annex 1
38 Glossary of terms and further information
Annex 2
40 Key steps a client must consider when faced with a business need
Annex 3
42 Publications and useful websites
“It is unwise to pay too much, but it’s worse to

pay too little. When you pay too much, you lose
a little money - that is all. When you pay too little,
you sometimes lose everything, because the
thing you bought was incapable of doing the
thing it was bought to do. The common law of
business balance prohibits paying a little and
getting a lot - it can’t be done. If you deal with
the lowest bidder, it is well to add something for
the risk you run. And if you do that, you will have
enough to pay for something better. ”
John Ruskin 1860
3
4
Foreword
Brian Wilson MP, Minister for Construction

My first acts as Minister for improve its image if it is to recruit and retain the quality
Construction were to announce the people it needs. I want to see concern translated into
arrangements for the Strategic Forum action to tackle real issues. The industry must improve
for Construction and the extension of its health and safety record; its poor working conditions
the Rethinking Construction and long hours culture; its excessive use of casual
programme for a further two years. I labour and neglect, in some cases, of employment
have kept closely in touch with the rights.
Forum's work and I very much
To become world class the industry must invest in
welcome the publication of
training, in the development of new skills, and in
'Accelerating Change'.
research and development to make the best of new
Construction is a hugely important industry. And not materials and new technologies. Even more importantly
just because it accounts for some 8% of GDP, but it must change its culture and the way it does business,
because the product of the industry - the built by working more effectively together in a partnership to
environment - affects us all. Excellence in design can meet - and exceed - its clients expectations.
help raise productivity and business competitiveness,
I would like to pay tribute to Sir John Egan and the
as well as improving our quality of life. So I welcome
Strategic Forum for this report and the strategic vision
this report with its emphasis on creating a sustainable,
it contains. The report clearly sets out what needs to be
customer focussed industry. We must not forget who
achieved. We need a vibrant, profitable, productive and
we are building for - the end users. The industry is
competitive industry. I look forward to seeing the
judged by the public on the quality of its final projects.
industry's response, and the actions being taken to
We should therefore work together to ensure we can be
'accelerate change'.
proud of what we build.
I have seen that the best in the industry, especially the

Rethinking Construction demonstration projects, have
shown that these Rethinking Construction principles
hold good in practice and deliver real tangible returns
for clients, contractors, suppliers, consultants and
communities.
In seeking to inculcate the principles of Rethinking

Construction throughout the industry, the Strategic
Forum has rightly identified the importance of client
leadership. I am determined, with the help of my
ministerial colleagues, to help ensure that the public
sector, as the industry's largest client, plays its role in
driving forward the change agenda. I want to see that
the taxpayer gets value for the money we invest -in
schools, hospitals, roads, and so on. Clients want
construction projects that embody good whole life
value and performance, excellent design and
functionality, that are delivered within budget, on time
and defect free.
To achieve this clients need an industry that is efficient.

An industry that works in a 'joined up' manner, where
integrated teams move from project to project, learning
as they go, driving out waste, and embracing a culture
of continuous improvement.
And to do all this, as the report emphasises, the

industry really must respect its people. It needs to
5
6
Statement by
Sir John Egan, Chairman - Strategic Forum for Construction
In my foreword to 'Rethinking business needs and help lead the process of creating
Construction', I challenged the integrated teams. Increased use of partnerships and
construction industry to commit itself long term framework agreements will help drive
to change so that, by working together, continuous improvement.
a modern industry could be created.
Integrated team working is key. Integrated teams
'Accelerating Change' is evidence of
deliver greater process efficiency and by working
the ability of the industry to come
together over time can help drive out the old style
together and agree a strategic
adversarial culture, and provide safer projects using a
framework for action.
qualified, trained workforce. It is self evident that teams
'Accelerating Change' is not a new that only construct one project learn on the job at the
initiative, it builds on and reaffirms the principles we set client's expense and hence will never be as efficient,
out in 'Rethinking Construction'. The Forum sought to safe, productive or profitable as those that work
tackle barriers to progress and identify ways to repeatedly on similar projects. I want to see expert
accelerate the rate of change. This report is the teams coming together to deliver world class products,
culmination of the Forum's first year's work. based on understanding client needs.
Independent analysis of the comments made during
I also passionately believe in the importance of tackling
our consultation exercise showed an overwhelmingly
the industry's health and safety problems. Pre-planned,
positive response.
well designed projects, where inherently safe processes
Change is already underway. I have been greatly have been chosen, which are carried out by companies
impressed by the industry's efforts to apply 'Rethinking known to be competent, with trained work forces, will
Construction' principles. The demonstration projects be safe: they will also be good, predictable projects. If
clearly show that the targets we set were realistic, and we are to succeed in creating a modern, world class
that when achieved the result brings benefit to all. I industry, the culture of the industry must change. It
very much welcome the progress made, and must value and respect its people, learn to work in
congratulate those who have helped bring it about. integrated teams and deliver value for clients' money.
Some of the Forum's proposals seem controversial to By continuously improving its performance through the
some yet common sense to others. The role of the use of integrated teams, the industry will become more
independent client advisor received considerable successful. This will in turn enable it to attract and
comment. I wish to see an end to lowest cost tendering retain the quality people it needs, which will enable it
as the main procurement tool of this industry and to profitably to deliver products and services for its
replace this wasteful and unpredictable process with clients.
one where clients procure value for money against
I urge you to respond to the challenge and work
world class benchmarks and projects are delivered by
together with others to achieve the targets of
integrated teams of experts involved in continuous
'Accelerating Change'
improvement in customer satisfaction, productivity,
safety and value for money. Clearly many clients will
need help setting bench marks and assembling a
competent integrated team to do their construction and
for this I am sure independent advice will be required.
Though I would prefer that the industry itself were
giving the lead, the construction industry can only really
lead when it is able to offer clients projects that are
predictable on cost, time and quality; where the
industry understands its customer's needs and can
deliver products which are predictable in every way
including in-use costs.
In the meantime, clients need to improve their

understanding of how construction can best meet their
7
Key Measures to Accelerate Change
Vision developed to take forward and make the business
case for IiP.
Our vision is for the UK construction industry to
realise maximum value for all clients, end users and • Develop some robust examples of how changing a
stakeholders and exceed their expectations through people culture can change a business positively.
the consistent delivery of world class products
• Develop a communication plan to spread its
and services.
message throughout the SME sector; and produce
a signposting booklet, pointing the way towards the
Strategic Targets most relevant and effective people initiatives, and a
By the end of 2004 20% of construction projects by straightforward summary of Accelerating Change
value should be undertaken by integrated teams by the end of 2002.
and supply chains; and, 20% of client activity by
value should embrace the principles of the Clients'
Future actions agreed by others
Charter. By the end of 2007 both these figures
should rise to 50% The Construction Best Practice Programme will
The Forum is determined to reverse the long-term • Develop, collate and share tools and activities
decline in the industry's ability to attract and retain specifically targeted towards SMEs to support
a quality workforce. To that end its members will them in all aspects of their development as part of
develop and implement strategies which will an integrated supply team.
enable the industry to recruit and retain 300,000
qualified people by the end of 2006, and result in • The emergence of current best practice in Logistics
a 50% increase in suitable applications to built will be collated and shared with industry through
environment higher and further education events, training and workshops to accelerate
courses by 2007. change in this important area of productivity
improvement.
Future actions by the Forum The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) will publish in
The Forum will September 2002 a wide ranging Discussion Document
exploring various levers to achieve cultural change in
• Put in place means of measuring progress towards the industry to benefit health and safety performance.
its targets.
• Ensure a 'Toolkit' is developed by April 2003 to help Forum recommendations. 1

clients, and individual supply side members,
The Forum recommends that:
assemble integrated teams, mobilise their value
streams and promote effective team working skills • Clients, who wish it, have access to independent,
and then produce an action plan to promote its use. expert advice on all the options for meeting their
business or project needs - not just those involving
• Produce:
construction activities. Such advice should cover a
– Models for payment mechanisms by April 2003 range of procurement and management options,
including environmental performance, operating
– KPIs for payment within supply chains to help
and whole life costs. The industry, in partnership
to establish and benchmark best practice by
with government, should promote the value of
April 2003.
independent advice to assist clients realise value
• Ensure a review of people initiatives is undertaken, for money.
which results in a cohesive, deliverable strategy by
• Clients should require the use of integrated teams
the middle of 2003, and which works in support of
and long term supply chains and actively
the overall vision expressed in this report.
participate in their creation.
• Develop by the end of 2002 a code of good
• A list of basic competencies and a code of conduct
working practices to be adopted by clients,
should be made available to ensure the adequacy,
employers, employees and trade unions.
consistency and independence of the service
• Press for a more concerted initiative to be clients can expect.
8
1 Many views and suggestions were expressed during the consultation phase of Accelerating Change and, overwhelmingly, the weight of
opinion was in favour of the vision and strategic direction proposed and this is reflected in this final report. While many of the specific
ideas do not appear in this final document, they will be taken into account, as detailed programmes are developed to implement the
recommendations in this report.
• Clients should create an environment throughout all recommendations for change by July 2003.
stages of the project which delivers excellence in
• There should be widespread use of the Respect for
health and safety performance.
People toolkits.
• HSE should consider publishing details of all
• Employers address the issue of pay and conditions
companies, including clients, associated with sites
in order to attract and retain the very best people in
where fatal accidents occur.
all sectors of the industry.
• Existing process maps should be reviewed and
• The industry develops closer working relationships
signposted to encourage those who wish to
with schools, colleges and the Curriculum Centres
actively participate in integrated teams.
offering advice and support at both design and
• The CCC should continue to work with CBI and delivery stages.
IOD to ensure that their members adopt the
• All industry sectors identify how to demonstrate
Charter's principles when commissioning
that they have a qualified workforce.
construction work.
• The professional bodies jointly with the CITB and
• OGC gives its work on developing simple "how to"
other training bodies conclude as a matter of
guides high priority.
urgency issues of professional development for
• A package of education and training (meeting the graduates into management roles.
needs of SMEs and small and occasional clients) in
• Industry whole-heartedly adopts existing S/NVQs at
supply team integration and collaborative working
levels 3,4 and 5, supported by programmes such
should be developed by end 2003.
as the CIOB's Site Management Education and
• HSE include in their Approved Code of Practice Training Scheme, and the CITB's portfolio of
reference to a system of 'gateways'. At each management and supervisory training.
gateway there should be a checklist for assessing
• CIC's forthcoming review includes a requirement to
the relevant health and safety risks associated with
include integrated project team-working in courses
critical stages in the planning and design process.
achieving accreditation against the common
At each stage the integrated team should be
learning outcomes.
required to certify that they have - as a team -
considered the health and safety risks in order to • The industry must take responsibility for the
ensure that the facilities currently developed will be sustainability of its products (from components to
safe to build and safe to maintain and operate. the completed structure) as well as its processes.
• Work to enable corporate competence to be readily

assessed and, if necessary, validated should be
carried out, and recommendations made, by
September 2003.
• Project insurance products should be made

available to underwrite the whole team. The
construction industry, supported by its clients,
should by end of 2003 present projects suitable for
'project insurance piloting' which should then be
evaluated. The results should be analysed and
disseminated by the Construction Best Practice
Programme.
• A study, coordinated by the Specialist Engineering

Contractors' Group in consultation with the industry
and Government, should be carried out to examine
the impact of insolvency law and practice on
construction supply chains and make
9
Vision
Our vision is for the UK construction industry to • Strong client/customer focussed integrated teams
realise maximum value for all clients, end users and that work proactively together to:
stakeholders and exceed their expectations through
– minimise risks to health and safety of all those
the consistent delivery of world class products and
services. who construct, maintain, refurbish operate and
have access to the construction product;
In order to achieve this the UK construction
industry must: – drive out waste during design, planning,
construction, maintenance, refurbishment and
• add value for its customers, whether occasional or operation;
experienced, large or small;
– achieve sustainable construction by recognising
• exploit the economic and social value of good that construction represents only a fraction of
design to improve both the functionality and the cost of the building over its life span;
enjoyment for its end users of the environments it
creates (for example, hospitals where patients – ensure a quality of design that enhances the
recover more quickly, schools and work places built environment, as well as providing
which are more productive and more enjoyable to functionality and flexibility for the user.
work in, and housing which raises the spirits and

enhances the sense of self worth);
• become more profitable and earn the resources it “Successful delivery of the
needs to invest in its future;
vision will require more than
• enhance the built environment in a sustainable way integration of the supply process.
and improve the quality of life.
It will require long-term
Such an industry will be characterised by:
partnerships, performance
• A process that helps clients describe their needs so
measurement, continual
that as a minimum, the project delivers their
requirements. (Long term strategic partnering will improvement and fair rewards for
deliver real savings for clients and bring benefits to the whole supply chain. ”
all in the supply chain.) Highways Agency
• Clients (experienced or inexperienced) procuring

and specifying sustainable construction projects,
products and services and a supply side that • Respect for its people, including:
responds collaboratively to deliver these in a way
– Professional relationships and attitudes that
that enables all in the integrated team to maximise,
result in behaviour based on mutual respect and
demonstrate and measure the added value their
where people treat others as they would wish to
expertise can deliver.
be treated.
• Integrated teams, created at the optimal time in
– A positive image that attracts and retains a high
the process and using an integrated IT approach,
quality committed workforce with appropriate
that fully release the contribution each can make
skills and competencies.
and equitably share risk and reward in a
non-adversarial way. – An emphasis on education, training and
continuing personal and professional
• Integrated teams made up of existing integrated
development.
supply chains, which once successfully formed are
kept together and move from one project to the • A culture of continuous improvement based on
next taking their experience and a culture of performance measurement.
continuous improvement with them. And, wherever • Investment in research and development, driven by
possible, established integrated supply teams and innovation, resulting in improved performance and
supply chains are appointed. enhanced competitiveness and productivity.
10
• Consistent and continuously improving
performance, and improved profitability, making it
highly valued by its stakeholders.
This vision needs to be supported by an education and

training process that incorporates best practice and a
systematic approach to continuing professional and
personal development.
Clearly the mechanisms for achieving the vision may

vary, and there will be differing needs for guidance or
support. However, the vision and the principles it
espouses are applicable to all companies whatever
their size, or position in the market.
11
Chapter 1
Rethinking Construction
1.1 Rethinking Construction2 set out an approach projects should be reduced by 20% per year.
whereby substantial improvements in quality and
• To achieve these targets the industry will need to
efficiency could be made. The Construction Task Force
make radical changes to the processes through
issued a challenge to the construction industry to
which it delivers its projects. These processes
commit itself to change, so that, working together, a
should be explicit and transparent to the industry
modern industry could be created, ready to face the
and its clients. The industry should create an
future. Accelerating Change, which is not a new
integrated project process around the four key
initiative builds on the recommendations in Rethinking
elements of product development, project
Construction, which are set out below.
implementation, partnering the supply chain and
production of components. Sustained improvement
Rethinking Construction - should then be delivered through use of techniques
Executive Summary for eliminating waste and increasing value for
the customer.
• The UK construction industry at its best is
excellent. Its capability to deliver the most difficult • If the industry is to achieve its full potential,
and innovative projects matches that of any other substantial changes in its culture and structure are
construction industry in the world. also required to support improvement. The industry
must provide decent and safe working conditions
• Nonetheless, there is deep concern that the
and improve management and supervisory skills at
industry as a whole is under-achieving. It has low
all levels. The industry must design projects for
profitability and invests too little in capital, research
ease of construction making maximum use of
and development and training. Too many of the
standard components and processes.
industry's clients are dissatisfied with its overall
performance. • The industry must replace competitive tendering
with long term relationships based on clear
• The Task Force's ambition for construction is
measurement of performance and sustained
informed by our experience of radical change and
improvements in quality and efficiency.
improvement in other industries, and by our
experience of delivering improvements in quality • The Task Force has looked specifically at
and efficiency within our own construction housebuilding. We believe that the main initial
programmes. We are convinced that these opportunities for improvements in housebuilding
improvements can be spread throughout the performance exist in the social housing sector for
construction industry and made available to all its the simple reason that most social housing is
clients. commissioned by a few major clients. Corporate
clients -housing associations and local authorities -
• We have identified five key drivers of change which
can work with the house building industry to
need to set the agenda for the construction
improve processes and technologies and develop
industry at large: committed leadership, a focus on
quality products. We propose that a forum for
the customer, integrated processes and teams, a
improving performance in house building
quality driven agenda and commitment to people.
is established.
• Our experience tells us that ambitious targets and
• The Task force has concluded that the major clients
effective measurement of performance are essential
of the construction industry must give leadership
to deliver improvement. We have proposed a series
by implementing projects which will demonstrate
of targets for annual improvement and we would
the approach that we have described. We want
like to see more extensive use of performance data
other clients, including those from across the public
by the industry to inform its clients.
sector, to join us in sponsoring demonstration
• Our targets are based on our own experience and projects. We also wish to see the construction
evidence that we have obtained from projects in industry join us in these projects and devise its own
the UK and overseas. Our targets include annual means of making improved performance available
reductions of 10% in construction cost and to all its clients. Our ambition is to make a start
construction time. We also propose that defects in with at least £500 million of demonstration projects.
12
2 'Rethinking Construction': The Report of the Construction Task Force, 1998 (www.rethinkingconstruction.org)
• In sum, we propose to initiate a movement for
change in the construction industry, for radical
improvement in the process of construction. This
movement will be the means of sustaining
improvement and sharing learning.
• We invite the Deputy Prime Minister to turn his

Department's Best Practice Programme into a
knowledge centre for construction which will give
the whole industry and all of its clients access to
information and learning from the demonstration
projects. There is a real opportunity for the industry
to develop independent and objective assessments
of completed projects and of the performance of
companies.
• The public sector has a vital role to play in leading

development of a more sophisticated and
demanding customer base for construction. The
Task Force invites the Government to commit itself
to leading public sector bodies towards the goal of
becoming best practice clients seeking
improvements in efficiency and quality through the
methods that we have proposed.
• The members of the Task Force and other major

clients will continue their drive for improved
performance, and will focus their efforts on the
demonstration projects. We ask the Government
and the industry to join with us in rethinking
construction.
1.2 These recommendations and the targets

contained in the report have been summarised in figure
1. It has become established as the 5:4:7 mantra of
Rethinking Construction.
Drivers for Improving the Targets for

Change Project Process Improvement
Committed Leadership Capital Cost -10%
Partnering
Product the Construction Time -10%
Focus on the Customer development supply chain
Predictability +20%
Product Team Integration Defects -20%
Accidents -20%
Quality-Driven Agenda Product Production of
implementation components
Productivity +10%
Commitment to People +10%

Turnover & Profits
Figure 1
13
Chapter 2
Progress since Rethinking Construction

Rethinking Construction 2.5 At the launch of Rethinking Construction Deputy
Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon John Prescott MP and Sir
four years on - achievements
John Egan challenged industry and its Clients to bring
and outputs
forward 50 such projects with a total value of £500
2.1 Rethinking Construction's objectives were, and million. To date there are more than 400 of these
still are, to achieve radical improvements in the design, projects in the programme, with a total value of over
quality, sustainability and customer satisfaction of UK £6bn. 38% of these are housing projects and 62%
construction. And for the industry to be able to recruit represent the rest of the construction industry. They
and retain a skilled workforce at all levels by improving provide examples of off-site fabrication,
its employment practices and health and safety standardisation, the use of new technology,
performance. In order to achieve this the Egan Task sustainability, respect for people activities, partnering
Force proposed not only a series of targets for and supply chain integration and other areas of process
improvement that underpin Rethinking Construction, improvement.
but the key drivers for change and the initial areas of
2.6 The report also exhorted industry to develop a
process to be tackled (figure 1).
culture of performance measurement - on the basis of if
you do not measure how can you demonstrate
Action taken to implement improvement. An industry wide group developed a set
Rethinking Construction of simple headline Key Performance Indicators (KPIs),
2.2 Since the publication of the report, the Rethinking based upon the 7 Rethinking Construction targets but
Construction agenda has been taken forward through a with the addition of Client Satisfaction measures. In all
dynamic partnership between government, clients and there are 12 measures. All demonstration projects are
industry. There are now more than 1,000 required to measure their performance against these
construction organisations actively involved in the KPIs and to report annually. DTI collects data from
initiative. industry at large, also annually, enabling a comparison
to be made between all industry performance and that
2.3 Directly following the launch of the Rethinking
of the Rethinking Construction demonstration projects.
Construction report the Movement for Innovation3
The following data, published in May 2002,6 illustrate
(M4I) was established by industry with Government to
that comparison for the year 2001.Similar results were
respond to the recommendation in the report for a
published in May 2000 and 2001. Figure 2
movement for change. Whilst M4I takes the lead in
general construction, the Housing Forum4 was 2.7 Taken together, these projects substantially
established to bring together all those within the house outperform the average of the UK industry against the
building chain in the movement for change and key indicators. More detailed results can be obtained
innovation. Then in March 2000 the Local Government from the Rethinking Construction 2002 report, from the
Task Force5 was set up to encourage and assist local DTI or from the Construction Best Practice Programme
authorities to adopt the principles of Rethinking (CBPP) who publish them annually. Within the
Construction. Following some three and a half years of combined portfolio, 197 projects are entirely new build
activity, the decision was made in April 2002 to projects, and 66 are refurbishment, repairs and
streamline the Rethinking Construction initiative by maintenance. The others are mixed projects. A sample
bringing together the streams under the banner of of projects provides the following breakdown of
Rethinking Construction Ltd which acts as the main projects by client type:
point of co-ordination and liaison, whilst maintaining
their individual focus.
2.4 At the heart of the Rethinking Construction

initiative is the demonstration projects programme. This
provides the opportunity for leading edge organisations
from whatever part of construction to bring forward
projects that demonstrate innovation and change which 2.8 The M4I projects include those of a non-housing
can be measured and evaluated. These are either site- type from the LGTF, the great majority of the 46% of
based projects or organisation change projects. public projects being from this sector. Whilst
14
3 Movement for Innovation: www.m4i.org.uk
4 The Housing Forum: www.thehousingforum.org.uk
5 Local Government Task Force: www.lgtf.org.uk
6
M4I demonstration project performance compared to all construction for 2001
Headline Key Performance All M4I
Measure M4I
Indicator construction Enhancement
Client Satisfaction - Product Scoring 8/10 or better 73% 85% +16%
Client Satisfaction - Service Scoring 8/10 or better 65% 80% +23%
Defects Scoring 8/10 or better 58% 86% +48%
Safety* Mean accident incidence rate/100K employed 990 495 +100%
Cost Predictability - Design On target or better 63% 81% +29%
Cost Predictability - Construction On target or better 50% 71% +42%
Time Predictability - Design On target or better 46% 81% +76%
Time Predictability - Construction On target or better 61% 70% +15%

percentage
Profitability Median profit on turnover 5.6% 7.6% +2% points
Productivity Median value added/employee (£000) 28 34 +21%
Cost Change compared to 1 year ago +2% -2% +4%
Time Change compared to 1 year ago +4% -8% +12%
* M4I safety data are project based while All Construction data are company based Figure 2
Government as industry sponsor and the Office of 2.9 Indeed, these and previous years results show
Government Commerce (OGC) have been total in their that the demonstration projects are consistently
commitment to and support of Rethinking Construction, exceeding the targets in Rethinking Construction. And
Government as Client needs more encouragement to more importantly, for the first time there is evidence of
become actively involved. More demonstration projects improvement in overall industry performance.
from them would be particularly welcome.
From the outset the achievements of these projects

compared with the industry average have been
remarkable. They have clearly demonstrated that the
application of Rethinking Construction principles leads
rapidly to:
– significant improvement in predictability of time

and cost;
– enhanced quality and reduction in defects;
– marked increases in productivity and

profitability;
– clear evidence that efficiently run design and

construction projects are significantly safer and
healthier;
– greater client satisfaction; and
– more repeat business.
15
6 Data source: Industry Progress report 2002 - contained in Construction Industy Key performance Indicator Pack 2002 Published by
CBPP
Demonstration Rethinking Construction Construction Industry,
Projects' performance Demonstration Projects (£6bn) as a whole (£64bn)
Profitability Increased profit Increased profit if

Rethinking Construction projects from one-third of industry
achieve 2 percentage points more Demonstration Projects = £120m take up = £420m
profit than the industry average
Construction Cost Reduced construction costs Reduced costs if

Demonstration project from one-third of industry
costs are 4.0% lower Demonstration Projects = £240m take up = £840m
than industry average
Safety Reduced costs of accidents Reduced costs

Demonstration project accidents are from if one-third of industry
50% lower than industry average. Demonstration Projects = £255m take up = £638m
Estimates put accidents costs across
the industry at 8.5% of turnover (see
Rethinking Construction Report
'People - our biggest asset')
Figure 3
2.10 Based on these results, estimates have been Practice Programme7 provides details of tools and
prepared for the savings that have occurred and also training to enable these lessons to be shared. Through
the size of the savings open to the wider industry if these sources of material the business case for change
they pursued the approaches trail-blazed by the is made very clearly indeed.
Demonstration Projects. The table below is compiled
from data collected from the Rethinking Construction Other ways in which Rethinking
Demonstration Projects in March 2002, and published
Construction operates
by the Construction Best Practice Programme in the
Industry Progress Report. Figure 3 above 2.13 Because of the varied nature of the industry and
its products, there are a number of other streams of
2.11 Recent independent research reviewing the
activity within the Rethinking Construction initiative.
impact of the Demonstration Projects among
These include:
participants has concluded that:
The Respect for People Steering Group.
– more than two-thirds reported improved
partnering, procurement or supply change 2.14 M4I published its report "A Commitment to People
management skills in their organisation; - Our Biggest Asset"8 along with a set of tools that
formed the basis of a trial programme. A set of KPIs to
– more than half report that their organisations
promote the image and performance of the industry in
have made changes in eight specific areas of
this vital area has recently been published. These trials
their business as a result; and
included both demonstration projects and
– more than two-thirds of participating demonstration companies and have been concluded.
individuals felt that they had been at the A final set of toolkits will be made available to industry
cutting edge of construction innovation and to help improve recruitment, retention and health
learned new skills. and safety.
2.12 The lessons drawn from these demonstration Sustainability Working Group
projects have been used to encourage others in the
2.15 The launch in 2001 of the project based
industry to embark on a process of radical change.
Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs) has
These lessons have been published in a variety of case
provided a key tool to drive improved sustainability in
studies, progress reports and themed reports available
design and working practices.
on the following websites: www.m4i.org.uk and
www.thehousingforum.org.uk. The Construction Best
16
7 Construction Best Practice Programme: www.cbpp.org.uk/cbpp
8 A Commitment to People - "Our Biggest Asset" - A report from the Movement for Innovation's working group on Respect for People,
November 2000 (www.rethinkingconstruction.org/index2.htm).
Design Quality Indicators Rethinking Construction in 2002
2.16 From the outset it has been clear that quality in 2.18 Because of the progress being made, the
design and construction have to be treated as one. Rethinking Construction initiative was given continuing
M4I requested that the Construction Industry Council, financial support by the Department of Trade and
supported by a DTI research grant, develop Industry for a further two years from April 2002,
measurement tools for this crucial area; these were and is being solidly backed through the direct
launched at the beginning of July 2002. engagement of hundreds of companies and industry
organisations, as well as other government
departments. More organisations are getting involved
with Rethinking Construction as the impact of the work
gathers momentum.
A Triple Bottom Line Case Study
Author The Construction Best Practice Programme 2.19 Increasingly, enlightened clients are seeking to
work with people who are committed to and
practitioners of this agenda. At the same time
Beach replenishment schemes are competing government is requiring the principles of Rethinking
increasingly with gravel extractors for a share of the Construction to guide clients' procurement practices
UK's reserves of sand and shingle. Halcrow helped its in both central and local government.
client, a borough council, negotiate successfully with
a port operator, to realise significant cost savings. 2.20 In order to embed Rethinking Construction across
the UK a network of 10 Regional Co-ordinators has
By using dredged shingle key benefits resulted from: been established to manage the Demonstration Project
Programme and to work with other local organisations
• One project's waste materials became another project's
to promote the principles of Rethinking Construction to
essential resources;
the widest possible audience. These Co-ordinators are
• No demand upon expensive and limited supply of working with the industry to develop integrated
licensed sand and shingle reserves; Rethinking Construction Centres. Centres in Wales and
• Port operator's requirement to dispose of dredged Northern Ireland have already been launched and
material at sea was reduced; others will follow over the next few months in England
and Scotland. The active involvement with the
• Environmental impact of dumping gravel at sea was
Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) and of
reduced;
Small and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) will be
• Replenishment material obtained at an estimated cost critical to their success.
saving of £2.6 million.
2.21 For Rethinking Construction the four key
objectives remain as:
1 Proving and selling the business case for

change - Through effective monitoring and
evaluation of Demonstration Projects and the
The Construction Best Practice Programme
collection of KPIs, continue to deliver clear
2.17 CBPP is the main dissemination arm for evidence to the industry that continuous business
Rethinking Construction and in addition to it's improvement is achieved by following the
programme directed primarily to SME's on today's best principles and targets of Rethinking Construction;
practice, it publishes the case studies generated by the with particular emphasis on clients, integrated
demonstration projects on tomorrow's best practice. supply teams and respect for people issues.
2 Engage clients in driving change - Encourage

clients to promote Rethinking Construction
through involvement in demonstrations and
commitment to the Clients' Charter.
17
3 Involve all aspects of the industry - Ensure that
every sector of the industry is represented by
active demonstration of the 'Rethinking
Construction' principles.
4 Create a self-sustaining framework for change

- Ensure that the industry takes responsibility for
developing and maintaining continuous
improvement, nationally and regionally.
All this will continue to be underpinned by the

programme of dissemination, support and advice
provided by the Construction Best Practice
Programme.
2.22 The Rethinking Construction initiative and

movement has, we believe, already made a difference
in the UK construction Industry. There is clear evidence
of a mood for change, the substantial beginnings of the
needed culture change, improved performance. But
there is much more still to do - a need to accelerate the
process of change.
18
Chapter 3
Strategic Direction and Targets

Strategic Direction 3.4 This report is tantamount to a manifesto for
change. The Strategic Forum looks to all who
3.1 The Strategic Forum identified three main drivers
work in, or represent, these sectors to commit to
to accelerate change and secure a culture of
the recommendations contained in this report
continuous improvement:
and to participate actively in achieving the key
• The need for client leadership strategic targets.
• The need for integrated teams and supply chains

Strategic Targets
• The need to address 'people issues', especially
3.5 By the end of 2004 20% of construction
health and safety.
projects by value should be undertaken by
3.2 These embrace customer focus; supply side integrated teams and supply chains; and, 20% of
integration; and respect for people. These issues are client activity by value should embrace the
strategically linked. Progress on one cannot be made at principles of the Clients' Charter. By the end of 2007
the expense of another. Clients are the starting point of both these figures should rise to 50%.
the process and more must commit to procuring on the
3.6 The Forum is determined to reverse the long-
principles of best value not lowest price. The industry
term decline in the industry's ability to attract and
must respond to give impartial advice, become more
retain a quality workforce. To that end its members
customer focussed and deliver the value such clients
will develop and implement strategies which will
expect.
enable the industry to recruit and retain an
3.3 Delivery of the vision requires collaboration additional 300,000 qualified people by the end of
between the following: 2006, and result in a 50% increase in suitable
• The whole of the supply team, including clients and applications to built environment higher and further
manufacturers; education courses by 2007.
• Government (in terms of regulation, general 3.7 The Forum will put in place means of
economic climate and as a client); measuring progress towards its targets. A significant
Rethinking Construction benchmarking survey of the
• The finance and insurance sector (recognising and industry has been commissioned which will provide a
acknowledging the reduced risk involved in better sound basis for the measurement of change. The
practice); survey includes public and private sector clients,
• Schools, further and higher education, Careers contractors, consultants and other suppliers totalling
Services, national and regional funding agencies, 1300 respondents.
Sector Skills Councils and the Construction
Industry Training Board (CITB)9 (to get the right
sort of people with the right blend of skills and
competencies);
• Research institutions;
• Professional bodies, Institutions and trade

associations;
• Legal profession and contract writing bodies

(preventing an adversarial approach).
19
9 Construction Industry Training Board: www.citb.co.uk/citb_home.htm
Chapter 4
Accelerating Client Leadership
TARGET Achieving Client Leadership
20% of construction projects (by value) should be 4.1 It should be self-evident that, for a successful
procured by clients that embrace the principles of outcome, clients should enter the construction process
the Clients' Charter10 by end 2004, rising to 50% by with a clear understanding of their 'business' needs
end 2007 and their environmental and social responsibilities and
Those clients that adopt the Clients' Charter should hence the functionality they require from the finished
achieve an annual 10% improvement in product. They should also understand what value
performance. means for them. Without clarity at the outset, there are
likely to be changes throughout the delivery process
The Forum will develop a systematic basis for resulting in waste, duplication, poor design and
measurement to establish a baseline by the end dissatisfaction for everyone involved.
of 2002.
4.2 Many large, repeat clients have in-house teams
and processes which ensure they establish this crucial
“The leadership that clients development information at the outset, before the
decision to build or engage with the industry is taken.
should give is through making However for one-off or very occasional clients this is
their main project requirements not usually the case. Clients, specifically small and
fully transparent and creating the occasional clients, should have access to relevant,
simple guidance on practical steps to take when
right environment for the supply- considering commissioning a construction project and
side to meet those requirements how this can be made more sustainable. To help
in the most effective way. ” inexperienced clients draw on the knowledge of more
experienced clients a generic process map has been
Confederation of Construction Clients
developed and is set out in Figure 4 and annex 2.
Key Steps a Client must consider when faced with a Business Need
STEP 1 Outputs
Verification of need
Statement of Business Needs
Priorities,objectives,stakeholders & constraints
STEP 2 Assessment of options

Business case
If Construction phase required
Encompassing all business requirements
STEP 3 Develop Procurement

Strategy
Strategic Brief
In Client's terminology
STEP 4 Implement Procurement
Strategy
Selection of the Team
STEP 5 Project Delivery
Delivery of business solution

By focused Team and Client
STEP 6 Post Project Review
Capture Learning
Confirm benefits & inform future projects
Figure 4
20
10 Clients' Charter : see glossary, Annex 1.
4.3 While all steps in the process are important the term supply chains and actively participate in
Strategic Forum believes that, to date, inexperienced their creation.
clients do not invest sufficiently in the first two, which
• To ensure the adequacy, consistency and
are vital if a successful business solution is to be
independence of the service clients can expect a
achieved. This process map should be promoted on
list of basic competencies and a code of conduct
the basis that a client should seek independent advice
should be made available. Numerous codes of
for any of the tasks they do not feel confident in
practice and codes of conduct already exist in the
undertaking themselves. If and when required, clients in
construction sector that can help shape this work.
need of assistance should be able to access
independent advice, which meets the principles of
Rethinking Construction, with confidence that it is
Health and Safety Performance
given without vested interest in the solution proposed. 4.5 Clients should create an environment throughout
The Forum does not see the need for, nor does it all stages of the project which delivers excellence in
recommend, the establishment of a new profession health and safety performance. There are good
for the delivery of this advice. Annex 1 gives business and ethical reasons to do this. Even though
further information. some clients may wrongly seek to distance themselves
from health and safety during the construction process
they cannot take the same attitude to the safety of the
“We've seen the success of finished product, which will be used by their employees
projects using independent or members of the public.
advisors for clients, in a client 4.6 Increasingly clients will be judged by their
representative role focussing on customers and by financial analysts on their ethical
stance in relation to safety in the same way as is already
non-adversarial approaches. happening for environmental performance and
[And] we've seen a 30% sustainability. Such issues have an important impact on
reduction in fees and a 10% corporate image, and on how local communities and
stakeholders view them. In direct business terms,
reduction in prelims as a direct
result of well-integrated and
co-ordinated teams. ” Case Study: Confederation
Senior project manager of Construction Clients
The Directorate of Estate Management
4.4 The Forum therefore recommends that: of Cambridge University started, in
1999, to require their contractors to
• clients, who wish it, have access to independent,
have 60% of their appropriate staff on
expert advice on all the options for meeting their
site registered to CSCS or equivalent.
business or project needs - not just those involving
This percentage has subsequently
construction activities. Such advice should cover a
increased by over 10% annually so that
range of procurement and management options,
now new contracts worth over
including environmental performance, operating
£1million utilise over 80% of
and whole life costs. This is vital if clients are to
appropriate staff registered for CSCS
receive better solutions which meet their needs.
or equivalent. The Directorate has
• Whatever the procurement option, achieving found that particularly in recent
maximum integration of the team at the optimal months, contractors (and specialists)
time should be seen as essential in order to make have encouraged all relevant staff,
the best use of all available expertise, and central including management, to have CSCS
to the delivery of best whole life performance and equivalent, and will increasingly require
maximising client value from construction. Clients this for access to site.
should require the use of integrated teams and long
21
accidents on site may involve client liability and will lead principles. It has a significant vested interest in getting
to delays. Unhappy workers produce defective work. best whole life value from construction if it is to
demonstrate that it is spending taxpayers' money
Poor health and safety performance of the building
effectively and efficiently. It is important that the public
when in use will result in the ineffective delivery of
sector demonstrates that it is a best practice client
business objectives. Clients pay the price for all this
which consistently secures the best whole life
avoidable waste.
performance that the construction industry can offer.
4.7 Clients should deliver excellence in health and The public sector can be helped to achieve this by:
safety performance and thereby enhance their own
• a financial and audit regime which supports best
corporate reputations by:
practice, further encouraging movement away from
• Setting the requirements for healthy, safe working; short-termism that places lowest initial cost ahead
of whole life performance;
• Making health and safety of their customers, staff,
and everyone they work with, or for, a business • removing the divide between capital and revenue
priority at the forefront of their agenda when expenditure in local government projects to help
commissioning construction; realise value for money as opposed to lowest price;
• Using integrated supply teams to ensure the • linking government funding of construction projects
effective contribution of the entire supply chain to to the application of Rethinking Construction
delivering a safe site and a safe product; and principles;
regular measurement of the extent of integration
• audit processes attached to such expenditure to
throughout the supply chain;
evaluate the extent to which value and whole life
• Using the discipline of a "gateway" (explained in performance, are used as the basis of
Annex 1) process to ensure they meet all their procurement;
obligations to achieve a safe, efficient project. One
• providing a lead in the procurement of sustainable
that is more likely to be delivered on time and on
construction.
budget.
4.11 Some clients are concerned that the principles of
4.8 The Forum recommends that, to concentrate
integrated teams moving from project to project in
minds further, HSE should consider publishing details
order to maximise knowledge and efficiency may
of all companies, including clients, associated with
appear to conflict with EU and UK government
sites where fatal accidents occur.
procurement rules on open competition. However, the
4.9 Emphasis should also be placed squarely on the National Audit Office (NAO) addressed this issue in its
training of project teams to ensure that clients, report Modernising Construction11 and concluded that
consultants, constructors and specialists are all aware provided it was undertaken in an open and transparent
of the demonstrable business, efficiency and safety way with adequate measurement in place to ensure
benefits of integrating teams and processes. Too many best value was in fact being delivered then this method
organisations continue to believe that partnering and of procurement did comply. Extensive guidance
integrated procurement are experimental techniques already exists to help delivery teams determine their
and that the majority of their mainstream projects can positions within the rules and this can be found on the
still be effectively procured through traditional Office for Government Commerce's website:
arrangements. Training combined with the application www.ogc.gov.uk. The guidance also emphasises whole
of that training on live projects, including the life value. In addition, the existing process maps
benchmarking of achievements and the sharing of should be reviewed for the Forum, by the
lessons learned, is essential. Confederation of Construction Clients (CCC), and
signposted to encourage those who wish to participate
The Public Sector as a Client actively in integrated teams. Design champions within
public sector bodies will have an increasingly
4.10 Representing 40% of construction orders, the
important role and must have an understanding of how
public sector can make a substantial difference to the
to ensure Rethinking Construction is used to ensure a
widespread adoption of Rethinking Construction
high quality final product.
22
11 Modernising Construction, HC 87 2000-2001 ISBN 010 276 901 0 HMSO £12.00
Private Sector Clients 4.16 The Forum welcomes the similar guidance for
local authority clients that is being prepared by the
4.12 Private sector clients, especially those who are
Local Government Task Force to assist local authorities
not experienced customers of the construction industry,
to maximise the value of construction procurement.
should understand how their construction projects can
best be carried out if they are going to fulfil their 4.17 In the private sector the review currently being
business needs. This is a key message that business undertaken by the CCC of existing process maps
organisations, and in particular the Confederation of should continue, and the resulting products made
British Industry (CBI) and the Institute of Directors available through an easily accessible website
(IOD), should be conveying to their members. The CCC presented to suit general client groupings, i.e.
is currently developing a 'Starter' Charter aimed at this small/occasional/repeat.
audience. The CCC should continue to work with these 4.18 Client action must also support the development
business organisations to ensure that their members of long-term integrated supply chains to increase
adopt the Charter's principles when commissioning productivity, reduce time, increase cash-flow efficiency
construction work. and minimise risk. These actions need to be backed up
by leadership in the construction industry to make
Client Guidance long-term integrated supply chains the 'norm' rather
than the exception.
4.13 Given the widely varying experience of clients it is
clear that in developing guidance one-size does not fit 4.19 Clients need to avail themselves of the expertise
all. Yet the need for simple, relevant guidance exists of product manufacturers and suppliers. Their input to
and must be addressed. project design can offer the potential for considerable
savings through identification of standard products and
4.14 The Office of Government Commerce (OGC)12
detailed design solutions that are practical to
has issued a series of guidance notes for central civil
implement and reliable in operation.
government clients13. The OGC's 'gateway' process
offers a highly relevant straightforward way to ensure
that government clients are helped through the
procurement process at all stages and that the
principles of Rethinking Construction underpin this. The
Forum congratulates the OGC for taking the lead in this
way. The Forum urges OGC to give its work on
developing simple "how to" guides high priority. The
Forum will look to incorporate the gateway approach
into any tools they develop.
4.15 Process maps and 'awareness raising' guidance

should be developed for use by clients even before
they get to the point of deciding that they need to
undertake a construction project to meet their business
needs. Simple awareness raising pamphlets have a role
to play in getting across the message to small and
occasional clients that 'there is a better way to build'.
However, they should form part of the Forum's
continuous long-term communications strategy that
first creates awareness of effective procurement
methods, and second directs clients to independent
advice. In the longer term the best source of
information for such prospective clients may be the
independent advisers. The industry, in partnership with
government, should promote the value of independent
advice to assist clients to realise value for money.
23
12 Office of Government Commerce: www.ogc.gov.uk
13 Office of Government Commerce Guidance Notes 1-10: http://porch.ccta.gov.uk/treasury/reports.nsf
Chapter 5
Accelerating Supply Side Integration and Integr

TARGET 10%. This report looks forward to the time when the
industry can offer a full integrated service to their
20% of construction projects (by value) should be
clients, which will deliver predicted results in all areas.
undertaken by integrated teams and supply chains
And then clients can truly be treated as customers.
by end of 2004, rising to 50% by end 2007.
The Forum will develop a systematic basis for Creating Value through
measurement to establish a baseline by the Integration
end of 2002.
5.2 Just as client action must support the
5.1 Supply side integration has a crucial part to play development of integrated teams, and their supply
in increasing quality and productivity, reducing project chains, to achieve maximum value and optimum
times, increasing cash-flow efficiency and thus performance, the creation of value should be a
minimising risk, whether in terms of the reduced costs focussed objective of integrated teams.
from 'getting it right first time', or added value through
5.3 An integrated supply team includes the client, as
ensuring that people work within 'process,' not least so
well as those involved in the delivery process who are
that health and safety risks are 'designed out' at
pivotal in providing solutions that will meet client
source. Supply side integration delivers benefits during
requirements. Thus those involved in asset
initial project delivery and by securing best value
development, designing, manufacturing, assembling
throughout subsequent use of the completed project.
and constructing, proving, operating and maintaining,
Moreover, supply side integration will maximise
will have the opportunity to add maximum value by
opportunities for sustainable solutions. For example,
being integrated around common objectives,
the integration of the processes of planning, design,
processes, culture/ values, and reward and risk.
construction installations, products and materials
selection and facilities management/maintenance will 5.4 Members of integrated teams should only be
result in a substantial reduction in construction costs. It appointed if they have established integrated supply
is generally accepted that, at present, the number of chains to support them, the expertise of which will be
projects delivered by integrated teams is less than drawn upon in offering solutions to clients. Supply
chains can reach from clients right through to those
manufacturers who are not otherwise part of the
OGC recommends the adoption of forms of contract that
integrated team. However, key manufacturers must be
encourage team integration. These are PFI, Prime part of the integrated team.
Contracting and Design and Build. From 1 June 2000 all 5.5 Product manufacturers, suppliers and specialists
Central Government clients were advised to limit their can develop solutions that involve less site processing,
procurement strategies for the delivery of new works to increased standardisation, pre-assembly and pre-
fabrication, which takes work off the site, reduces
PFI, Design and Build and Prime Contracting and from 1
health and safety risks, and improves quality and
June 2002 these procurement strategies should be reliability. They can also advise on availability of new
applied to all refurbishment and maintenance contracts. products, and innovative solutions which, when linked
closely to design and installation, can bring real
Traditional non-integrated strategies will only be used
benefits. By engaging in integrated teams their research
where it can be clearly shown that they offer the best and development expertise can be unlocked and
value for money which means in practice they will seldom deployed to deliver value and enhance the finished
be used. This policy was referred to in NAO’s report project. The early involvement of trade unions can also
help realise the benefits the workforce can offer to team
Modernising Construction (HC87 Session 2000-2001: 11 working. There needs to be significant investment in
January 2001) when they said (paragraph 1.13) that education and training to emphasise not just to industry
"all…initiatives are having an impact in improving new-entrants, but to existing managers through
continuing personal and professional development, the
construction performance".
importance of team working. For small and occasional
Office of Government Commerce
clients who are uncertain how to build integrated
24
ated Teams
teams the independent client adviser would be a 5.9 A Contractor's ability to deliver an effective
valuable resource. service to the client can be greatly enhanced if it
coordinates operations that encompass design,
5.6 A package of education and training (meeting the
manufacture, delivery as well as construction.
needs of SMEs and small and occasional clients) in
supply team integration and collaborative working
should be developed by end 2003. The integration Integration Toolkit
toolkit (see below) should determine the content of the 5.10 While integrated working is an under-utilised
required education and training. The Forum welcomes concept in the construction industry, clients - especially
The Design Build Foundation's offer to develop this small and occasional clients - may have difficulty in
work in liaison with the Specialist Engineering understanding the benefits of, and the added value
Contractors' Group, the Construction Products provided by, integrated working. And there are benefits
Association and others. for companies in the supply chain too; by acting
5.7 The Construction Best Practice Programme together they are able to create a new capability, which
will develop, collate and share tools and activities they would not be able to do if they acted
specifically targeted towards SMEs to support them independently. Moreover integrated teams will help to
in all aspects of their development as part of an develop and optimize supply chain processes that, in
integrated supply team. turn, will drive change within business organisations.
IN TE GRATE D TE A M
CLIENTS
Construction and Facilities Managers
Quantity Surveyors; Constructors; key Manufacturers
Design Consultants and Specialist Contractors
Specialist Ductwork Fit Out

Equipment and Pipework eg
eg Standardisation, eg Off-site Logistics
R&D Fabrication
Examples of Supply Chains (or Clusters)

Figure 5
5.8 The major long-term benefit from integrated team 5.11 The Strategic Forum will ensure that a 'Toolkit' is
working is the potential for relationship continuity. developed by April 2003 to help clients, and individual
Integrated teams should be based, wherever possible, supply side members, assemble integrated teams,
on strategic partnering. Knowledge and expertise can mobilise their value streams and promote effective
then be transferred more effectively from one project to team working skills. An action plan will be produced to
the next. Whilst this is clearly of benefit to repeat promote its use. Such a toolkit will enable the full
clients, the benefits to one-off clients should not be potential of the teams to be realised for the benefit of
ignored, as such teams will be better placed to offer the client and should emphasise that supply team
them an improved service based on past experience, integration is relevant to small and occasional clients as
the ability to innovate, and through the development of well as to SMEs in the industry and can be applied to
a culture of continuous improvement. most projects (both in terms of value and type).
25
5.13 The Toolkit should be structured to include:
“Good luck! There is a role for • what an integrated team is;

lawyers to act as facilitators and • the principles that are required for collaborative
advisors in promoting these working in an integrated team environment (i.e.
leadership, processes and culture/values, trained
changes. The will is there! Few
and competent workforces, involvement of trade
realise what a sea-change there unions as representatives of the workforce);
has been as a result of • signposting from principles to real best practice
Latham/Egan. ” examples;
Construction Lawyer • benefits and responsibilities;
• effective team working processes and team

5.12 The 'toolkit' should address:
competence; and
• the meaning of integrated teams and integrated
• contract conditions that encourage team working.
supply chains;
• education and training in the value of long term

integrated supply chains; “Designers must involve the
• the level of integration required; contractors, specialist
sub-contractors and key
• types of supply teams;
manufacturers as soon as possible.
• the appropriate mechanisms for assembling the
teams;14
In order to interpret and develop a
functional brief it is essential that
• the benefits of project pre-planning to allow proper
identification and involvement of team members;
designers (including specialist sub-
contractors and key manufacturers)
• assembling appropriate teams that reflect the
varied nature of projects; are able to get close to clients. Many
contractors do not allow this to
• defining output/delivery of the team to ensure zero
defects; happen and this needs to change.
• identification of improvements that support greater
Once the project is designed the
integration; advantages that can be offered by
• identification of value streams for customers,
these specialists are missed. ”
clients and suppliers; Institution of Civil Engineers
• sustainable construction;
• measuring performance of clients and the supply Revisions to the Construction

teams; (Design and Management)
• incentivisation; Regulations 1994 (CDM)
• advantages of maintaining the team in place to gain 5.14 The Construction (Design and Management)
the benefits of continuity for other projects; Regulations 1994 (CDM)15, and accompanying
Approved Code of Practice, are powerful tools to bring
• benefits of integrated teams (improved
about accelerated progress towards integrated teams
performance, cost saving, reduction in waste,
by encouraging the early appointment of the 'delivery
reduced whole life costs); and
team'.
• modern payment practices.
5.15 The Health and Safety Executive (HSE)16 will
publish in September 2002 a wide ranging Discussion
26
14 Such mechanisms should be acceptable to both the public sector (i.e. the National Audit Office) and the private sector. The industry
and its customers should have access to data for the different facilities that reflect world-class performance. The assembled teams
should be committed to exceeding these levels.
15 Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994: www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19943140_en_1.htm
16 Health and Safety Executive: www.hse.gov.uk
5.17 Corporate competence is a vital adjunct to the
“We agree that the initiatives requirement to engage competent workers. The forum
recommends that work to enable corporate
covered in this section will help competence to be readily assessed and, if necessary,
deliver continual improvement. In validated should be carried out, and recommendations
made, by September 2003. All firms and their
addition to examination by CSCS,
workforce within integrated teams should be qualified
there will need to be good and competent.
training, good example set and
acquisition of ‘life-skills’, in order Project Insurance
for culture change to happen. ” 5.18 Integrated teams enable risk management issues
to be fully addressed by the whole team in an open and
Institution for Occupational Safety and Health
transparent manner. Insurance is an aspect of risk
management. Project insurance products should be
Document exploring various levers to achieve cultural
made available to underwrite the whole team to
change in the industry to benefit health and safety
facilitate integrated working. Such policies should
performance. It will explicitly raise the role that CDM
embrace Professional Indemnity Insurance, and works
can play in securing better communication and co-
contract insurance and perhaps aspects of Product
operation between parties in the process. Subject to
Liability Insurance. Collateral insurance policies that
comments, the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) is
provide cover to clients for work carried out by ongoing
then likely to publish a formal consultation document in
strategic teams already exist at manufacturer/sub-
2003 proposing specific amendments to CDM. It
contractor level (in conjunction with a contractor
should be noted, however, that vires of the Health and
licensing scheme) and should be explored further.
Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 is a legal constraint.
Changes to legal requirements do not of themselves 5.19 In spite of the current difficulties in the insurance
produce cultural change, but HSE wants CDM to market leading insurers are supportive of this proposal
support and encourage other non-legislative initiatives. in principle. The construction industry, supported by
The Forum would like to see regulations encourage the its clients, should by end of 2003 present projects
maximum integration of the team at the optimal time, suitable for 'project insurance piloting' which should
and that improve the balance of responsibilities then be evaluated. The results should be analysed
between the parties in such a way that all share legal and disseminated by the Construction Best
responsibility for health and safety, and all are therefore Practice Programme.
aware of the benefits of integrated working
5.16 To help deliver this, the Forum requests HSE to Case Study - BAA
include in their Approved Code of Practice reference to
a system of 'gateways'. At each gateway there should Establishing integrated supply teams to
be a checklist for assessing the relevant health and develop its Terminal 5 project at
safety risks associated with critical stages in the Heathrow has allowed British Airports
planning and design process. At each stage the Authority to take out an all-embracing
integrated team should be required to certify that they project insurance covering both
have - as a team - considered the health and safety professional indemnity insurance and
risks in order to ensure that the facilities currently contractor's all risks. This has
developed will be safe to build and safe to maintain significantly reduced the cost of the
and operate. The players within an integrated team may premiums by removing overlapping
change over the life of a contract and each team cover and introducing a non-
member could only certify those aspects over which confrontational approach which is
they have influence or control. Such an approach would focused around remedying the
complement and extend application of the OGC immediate event rather than trying to
gateway reviews, see Annex 2, which are applied in the identify where the fault lies.
public sector.
27
Supply Chain Management and the opportunity to tackle a major problem that has
dogged small and medium sized companies for many
Logistics
years. Insurance-backed, supply & fix, collateral
5.20 A considerable amount of waste is incurred in the warranties have been found to be one answer at
industry as a result of poor logistics. There should be manufacturer/sub-contractor level. With independent
greater focus on supply chain management and auditing by the underwriter the client is assured
logistics to facilitate integrated working and the of a quality, defect-free job, whilst retentions held
elimination of waste. Supply chain management is the against the contractor are unnecessary. These should
process by which one optimises the flow of goods and be encouraged.
materials from supplier to the point of use and logistics
5.25 The Forum will produce:
is the process used to manage the flow of goods and
materials, equipment, services and people though the • Models for payment mechanisms by April 2003
supply chain.
• KPIs for payment within supply chains to help
5.21 Designers, constructors and product suppliers to establish and benchmark best practice by
should examine logistics principles and how they can April 2003.
be applied to facilitate integration. In particular they
5.26 The forum recommends that a study, coordinated
should consider:
by the Specialist Engineering Contractors' Group in
• the logistics of supply and delivery of goods and consultation with the industry and Government, should
materials to site; and be carried out to examine the impact of insolvency law
and practice on construction supply chains and make
• the tracking of goods and materials through the
recommendations for change by July 2003.
supply chain (manufacture to the point of use).
5.27 These proposals do not cut across the
Both these themes have potential to deliver:
Construction Act17; rather they are designed to provide
• productivity improvements; the trust necessary to reinforce collaborative working.
• waste reduction; 5.28 The UK construction industry must adopt supply
• sustainability (energy saving); chain management techniques currently in use in
the manufacturing industry to increase productivity,
• improvement to health and safety; and
reduce time, increase cash-flow efficiency and thus
• promotion of wider use of IT. minimise risk.
5.22 The emergence of current best practice in

Logistics will be collated by the Construction Best
Practice Programme in conjuction with the
Construction Products Association and shared with
industry through events, training and workshops to
Case Study: MoD
accelerate change in this important area of
Citex on its Ministry of Defence
productivity improvement.
prime contract in Andover
Payment Security has instituted a fully transparent
5.23 Payment practices should be reformed to facilitate banking system whereby
and enhance collaborative working. all contractors on the project
5.24 Lengthy payment periods and delays in payments are paid through a single
severely damage construction businesses, especially
bank account
small and medium sized firms. In a relationship of
collective responsibility, responsible behaviour and
mutual interest, as characterised by integrated teams,
payment delays and retentions cease to be a significant
issue. By striving to integrate the team, the industry has
28
17 Part II of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996.
Chapter 6
Accelerating Culture Change in ‘People Issues’

TARGET amount of work that has already been undertaken in
recent years to address these issues.
The Forum is determined to reverse the long-term
decline in the industry's ability to attract and retain 6.4 A good number of initiatives have been set in
a quality workforce. To that end its members will train and one of the problems is that the industry is
develop and implement strategies which will experiencing initiative overload. Too many initiatives
enable the industry to recruit and retain 300,000 also means that limited resources are being spread
qualified people by the end of 2006, and result in too thinly.
a 50% increase in suitable applications to built 6.5 The Forum believes that it is now time for the
environment higher and further education industry to take a step back and carry out a full review
courses by 2007. of all the various initiatives that are currently underway
To achieve a workforce certificated as fully trained, and assess the real value they are adding to making the
qualified and competent on all projects no later industry an attractive sector to be employed in.
than 2010. 6.6 The Forum will ensure this review is
undertaken and results in a cohesive, deliverable
Recruitment and retention. strategy, by the middle of 2003 that works in
support of the overall vision expressed in this
6.1 For many years now the construction industry has
report. The Strategy should reflect the key issues in
lost out to other sectors in attracting the very best
this chapter and the actions that are being proposed to
people. This has been partly because of economic
help accelerate change.
circumstances - boom and bust cycles have denied the
industry the opportunity to train and provide long term
careers for its workforce. The consequence is that we Respect for People
now have an aging workforce and too few people 6.7 Understanding how the industry is perceived by
entering the industry. We need at least 300,000 over the its workforce, and placing their concerns at the heart of
next 5 years merely to tread water. The stable the industry's agenda is a prerequisite to change.
economic environment of the past 5 years has meant Through Rethinking Construction ten key performance
that we have never had a better opportunity to address indicators have been published18 producing
the issue. construction industry performance benchmarks on,
6.2 This chapter sets out some of the steps needed amongst other things, employee satisfaction, Investor
to turn matters round. To achieve this it must be an in People (IiP), staff turnover rate, sickness, absence,
industry whose workforce is properly valued; able to pay, safety and working hours. The Strategic Forum
work in healthy and safe conditions; are appropriately endorses these KPI's and will promote them within
skilled and qualified and are developed through a the industry. They provide a mechanism for establishing
systematic programme of continuing personal and how the industry responds to the call to respect its
professional development. workforce and will help build up an agenda for
future action.
Image 6.8 'Rethinking Construction' has also produced a

series of eight toolkits to help managers evaluate their
6.3 How the industry attracts and retains its most
performance. They encourage engagement with the
valuable asset, its workforce, is critically dependent on
workforce by collecting intelligence on their actual
its external image. All too often the construction
experience of their conditions and environment and
industry is perceived as being a dirty, low skilled,
also support better business and project performance.
accident prone working environment that fails to
This directly involves the workforce in the decision
respect its people in terms of investment and
making process, and will supplement the industrial
development. Those with the vocational aptitude for
relations framework already established in the industry.
construction industry professions and crafts are often
Widespread use of the Respect for People toolkits is
put off by this negative image and seek careers
recommended by the Forum.
elsewhere. This is not sustainable for the industry and it
is not sustainable for the built environment of the UK.
Yet this image is not entirely deserved given the large
29
18 These are available from www.cbpp.org.uk or www.rethinkingconstruction.org/respect
impact on the number of avoidable accidents caused
by a basic lack of site awareness that comes from
The Respect for People Toolkits proper training and education.
Following two years extensive construction industry trialling 6.10 Through integration of the supply team, pre-
the revised toolkits will be available in Oct 2002. Designed planning can allow "designing in" for health and safety
to help managers, clients, designers and project teams and designing out certain risks, (e.g. falls from height).
involved in construction projects the eight toolkits have Designers, whether they be architects or engineers who
been shown to support key approaches to development of are designing temporary works or scaffolding, need to
better performance including Investors in People, The become more aware of the opportunities they have to
Clients Charter and Business Excellence Model and focus minimise risks on a whole life cycle, as well as their
on the following areas: responsibilities under the CDM Regulation and
associated ACOP. The CIC, CIRIA, RIBA, RICS, ICE and
• Workforce Satisfaction;
other professional bodies have each produced
• Personal Working Environment; guidance (booklets, videos, CD-Roms) to designers to
• Safety; enable effective implementation of the CDM

Regulations in terms of designing out risks. The CIC is
• Health; also committed to providing a designated construction
• Work in Occupied Premises; professional who will be a health & safety 'champion'
for every Higher and Further Education College offering
• Training; construction courses.
• Working Environment; and 6.11 Further actions that can contribute to reducing
• Equality & Diversity risk in this critical area include:
Each toolkit comprises a simple checklist that helps • using the CSCS19 scheme to ensure that those
evaluate appropriate items during the planning, design and people who work at height are competent to do so
construction phases of projects and supports focussed i.e. developing a specific test to evaluate their
improvement action. They also direct users to first points preparedness;
of help and guidance on the subject under consideration.
• maximising the opportunities to develop solutions
that involve less site processing and more pre-
assembly and prefabrications;
Health and Safety • developing transportation and materials distribution
6.9 Contractors, clients and all those associated with processes that reduce risk to personnel on site;
construction can no longer simply accept the high
• developing an occupational health scheme for the
levels of accidents and fatalities identified with this
industry. HSE is planning a pilot scheme. The pilot
industry. Potential recruits are voting with their feet and
and work towards the wider scheme should be
staying away from a perceived dangerous environment.
progressed as quickly as possible; and
At the Construction Health and Safety summit in
February 2001, the industry set itself clear targets for • ensuring that the workforce is consulted on health
reducing the incidence of fatal and major accidents, ill and safety matters. The Major Contractors' Group
health and working days lost as a consequence of such is implementing a multi-step approach to workforce
events. Action plans were agreed to start delivering communication; and HSE is currently undertaking a
such improvements. The Forum welcomes the Major worker safety adviser pilot. The opportunity to learn
Contractors Group's target to achieve a fully from and build on these and similar initiatives
certificated workforce by the end of 2003, the Civil should be grasped.
Engineering Contractors Association's target to achieve
a workforce that is fully certified as being qualified by Site conditions
the end of 2007, with the remainder of the industry
6.12 The decisions made when projects are pre-
following no later than 2010. As has been
planned will directly impact on site conditions.
demonstrated in other industries this will have a major
Construction sites are the shop window of the industry,
30
19 Construction Skills Certification Scheme - See Annex 1
yet they are often perceived as being adversarial places be developed to take this forward and in make the
in which to work, leading to lower productivity as well business case for IiP. As part of the proposed 'people
as a poor industry image. To address this issue, the issues' strategy, a full action programme together with
Forum will develop by the end of the year a code of relevant signposted guidance to large companies and
good working practices to be adopted by clients, SMEs will be developed to increase the uptake of IiP.
employers, employees and trade unions. CITB and the Small Business Service will work in
partnership to improve the impact of initiatives to
6.13 The Considerate Constructors Scheme already
encourage small companies to embrace the Investors
helps contractors to maintain tidy, safe sites, which
in People standard as a route to business improvement.
cause minimum disruption to the local community.
The Construction Confederation's consultation kit on
health and safety issues also touches on site Diversity
conditions. Both of these initiatives are vehicles for 6.16 The industry needs to widen its recruitment and
promoting the proposed code of good working practice attract more women and more people from minority
as is the Rethinking Construction network of groups, which are currently very under-represented. As
demonstration projects. well as the actions endorsed under Respect of People
there is a need to improve opportunities for adult
Pay and Conditions learning. Women and ethnic minorities often find it
more attractive to join the industry at a slightly older
6.14 There is a clear need to offer pay and conditions
age. Funding for adult training and work experience
which make construction an attractive industry in which
needs to provide adequate support for achieving the
to work especially at site level. Basic craft pay rates
necessary vocational qualifications.
have already increased by 60% over the past six years.
New apprenticeship rates have also just been agreed
for England and Wales (they already existed in A Qualified Workforce
Scotland). However, pay rates in the industry 6.17 It is estimated that the construction industry
agreements do not reflect pay rates on many sites. needs to recruit 300,000 people over the next four
Further progress needs to be made to establish years to meet its needs. Getting the right people with
credible pay rates for the industry that value the the right skills is a priority for the industry, but so too is
existing workforce and attract new entrants. Two further updating and enhancing the skills and, where
issues need to be tackled to make the industry more applicable, management abilities of its existing staff.
attractive to new recruits. There is a long hours culture.
6.18 If staff at all levels are to play their full part in
Over the past five years the average working week has
realising value through the integration of supply chains
been 46.5 hours with over half the workforce in receipt
and teams, they must be cognisant of the potential
of overtime payments. This is not healthy for the
value creation opportunities and be able to identify and
industry's employees and is costly for employers and
extract them. Delivering value for money to clients in a
their clients. Holiday and Pension arrangements are
way that allows teams to develop efficiencies and new
also relatively unattractive. Employer contributions to
ways of working that can become transferable from
the industry's new stakeholder pension are relatively
project to project is tantamount to delivering value to
low and it still has to embrace all operatives in the
the supply team.
industry. The Forum urges employers to address the
issue of pay and conditions in order to attract and 6.19 Teachers and parents need to be made aware of
retain the very best people in all sectors of the industry. the great contribution of the construction industry to
improving the quality and prosperity of life and the
Investors in People (IiP) considerable technical and creative challenges the
industry offers at all levels.
6.15 There is a very low take-up of IiP within
construction (15% of the industry), despite its business
benefits. A number of training organisations, trade
Vocational Education
associations and Rethinking Construction have been 6.20 Tomorrow's craftsmen and women need to be
working to increase the take-up, but more can be done. getting their grounding in basic vocational skills now.
The Forum will press for a more concerted initiative to Yet the national curriculum appears to work against this
31
and steers our young people away from developing 6.24 A joint initiative 'Making Connections', sponsored
vocational skills, principally because the system is by DTI, CITB and CIC20, is seeking to address both of
designed to set a high premium on academic success. these issues through an agreed set of actions involving
If the industry's needs are to be addressed properly government, employers, higher education institutions
more attention and resources need to be targeted on and professional bodies. These must be supported by
vocational education and improving the take up of changes to the working experience of our best
National Vocational Qualifications (NVQs) at all levels advocate - the current workforce. Commitment from all
and across all sectors of the built environment. four stakeholder communities to deliver on these
actions is urgently needed if the industry is to have the
6.21 Initiatives such as the introduction of vocational
graduate population and skills it requires to achieve the
GCSEs and other similar measures proposed in the
radical improvement in performance promoted in
Government's Green Paper '14-19: extending
'Rethinking Construction'.
opportunities, raising standards' are a step in the
direction of redressing the balance. However changed
structures will only work if they are accompanied by Qualifying the Workforce
changed perceptions as to parity of esteem of 6.25 An "all qualified workforce" goes far beyond
academic and vocational study. Valuable work is simple health and safety knowledge. The industry
already being undertaken through CITB's 121 needs to build a professional industry, improving its
Curriculum Centres working in partnership with schools image and helping to change the way the workforce
and colleges. To maximise the potential offered by the views itself. The quality standard being developed
new qualifications requires the industry must develop through expansion of, and affiliation to, the CSCS card
closer working relationships with schools, colleges and scheme, or equivalent schemes, is an important
the Curriculum Centres offering advice and support at element of the Quality Mark Scheme. It should also be
both design and delivery stages. This includes offering in individual client assessments advocated by the
real opportunities for work-based learning supported by Confederation of Construction Clients. All industry
the industry and properly funded by the appropriate sectors should identify how to demonstrate that they
government agencies. have a qualified workforce. Achieving targets will
6.22 The promotion of role models by programmes require significant investment both in developing the
such as the CITB Young Presenter scheme provides necessary network of assessors and in supporting On-
young people with a real insight into the wide range of site Assessment and Training (OSAT) and off-site
career opportunities that exist within the construction training. This will require further support from
industry. The industry must support CITB in its plans to employers to develop work-based recorders and
increase the impact and reach of the scheme. assessors, and from the Learning and Skills Council
and their counterparts in Scotland and Wales, in
funding adult learning.
Graduate Entry
6.26 Continuing Personal/Professional Development
6.23 There has been increasing concern at the rapidly
(CPD)21 is also relevant to all workers in the industry
decreasing numbers applying for places on engineering
including designers and managers - not least because
and construction courses in higher education. The key
the existing workforce also needs to keep up to speed
issues are to ensure that:
with the changes being proposed in this report.
• there are sufficient numbers of quality people
entering higher education to meet the projected
demand; and
• those emerging are suitably equipped with the

skills, knowledge and understanding to meet the
challenges of a rapidly changing industry e.g. risk
management for project engineers, designing for
health and safety and sustainability.
32
20 CIC - Construction Industry Council www.cic.org.uk
21 See Annex 1
Management and Supervisory in courses achieving accreditation against the common
learning outcomes.
Training
6.27 Rethinking Construction identified the need to
Involving SMEs
improve management and supervisory skills in the drive
for performance improvement. Significant shortages of 6.31 Two things have been clear in looking at people
supervisors and managers are anticipated and the culture issues.
industry remains grossly under-qualified. Long-term • First, SMEs are not as active in this area as they
recruitment into industry from higher education needs might be. Some are paying attention - largely
to address issues of professional development for because their clients are telling them to - but most
graduates into management roles, a matter for the do not see there is a good business case for
professional bodies jointly with the CITB and other tackling the issues, that it can create higher
training bodies to conclude as a matter of urgency. productivity, increase profits and significantly
6.28 For a step change, large enough to raise the improve a company's image as a potential
quality of supervision and management in the shorter employer.
term, industry needs to whole-heartedly adopt existing • Second, SMEs are confused and struggling to
S/NVQs at levels 3,4 and 5, supported by programmes decide what to do first. There are simply too many
such as the CIOB's22 Site Management Education and initiatives about. Companies are confused by the
Training Scheme, and the CITB's portfolio of conflicting initiatives and jargon and have no idea
management and supervisory training. what is best for them.
The Forum has therefore identified two specific actions:

Integrated Teams and Supply
Chains • with the help of "Rethinking Construction" and the
Construction Best Practice Programme (CBPP) the
6.29 The creation of integrated teams and supply
Forum will develop some robust examples of
chains is fundamental to the success of Rethinking
how changing a people culture (whether it be
Construction. Unless there is a consistency of
for example, investment in training, diversity
approach to training such teams they will not be
initiatives or good health and safety
aligned or have similar levels of competency in the
performance) can change a business positively.
necessary skills. At present the large players in the field
probably provide a range of training that might cover • The Forum will then develop a communication
these skills but as the smaller companies enter the plan to spread its message throughout the SME
supply chain it becomes less and less likely that their sector; and to help those SMEs wanting to
personnel will have been formally trained in such skills. address the issue the Strategic Forum will
Integrated teams need integrated training. In the same ensure the production of a single signposting
way as this document suggests that 'project insurance booklet pointing the way towards the most
products should be made available to underwrite the relevant and effective people initiatives by the
whole team' so should appropriate training be made end of 2002.
available to the integrated team. This would ensure that
there is no disparity in the basic skill sets of the Enablers for change
members of the integrated team (including the client).
6.32 Action in and by the construction industry to raise
6.30 CIC has developed Common Learning Outcomes standards in all areas of its performance will help to
for implementation across all university degree curricula achieve the vision set out in this report. Nevertheless,
in the built environment, with the support of 16 of the there are some areas where external action can help to
major professional institutions. These are now due for accelerate change. Two such areas are:
imminent review. The CIC is committed to enhance the
degree of interdisciplinary working required to achieve The role of clients
the common learning outcomes. The Forum
6.33 How partners in the supply chain behave towards
recommends that CIC's forthcoming review includes a
one another is important in developing the relationship
requirement to include integrated project team-working
33
22 CIOB - Chartered Institute of Building: www.ciob.org.uk
of trust that underpins successful integrated teams.
Clients have an important role to play by selecting
designers and contractors who honour recognized
working rule agreements, who have excellent health
and safety records, and who train their workforce By
doing so they will help to achieve the strategic vision of
excellent performance and whole life value. The
developments of initiatives such as "Constructionline"
and "Quality Mark"23 provide tools to help clients
select the best contractors. As the industry's single
most important client, the government has a role to
play in leading the way on best practice.
The Informal Construction

Economy
6.34 The informal construction economy acts as a
brake on achieving the vision set out in this report. In
many cases, it is the most visible and unacceptable
face of the construction sector to the general public.
Shrinking it is an immediate priority, but there is no
question that the ultimate objective should be its
elimination. Its estimated value is £4.5 billion. An
independent report commissioned by UCATT24 also
suggests that the number of false self-employed
workers in the industry is between 300-400,000. Those
companies who flout tax and employment legislation
provide unfair competition for the respectable law
abiding firms. They are also encouraged by those
clients who seek lowest possible prices regardless of
the costs. It is in this sector where there is most
concern about health and safety and where "people"
issues are ignored. The prize for eliminating it is an
industry that can compete fairly, provide security of
employment for its workers and invest in its people. DTI
has released a disscusion document on employment
status in relation to statutory employment rights25
which is seeking views on the effects of extending
employment rights to categories of working people who
may be excludued from them.
34
23 For more details on Quality Mark : www.qualitymark.org.uk
24 Dr Mark Harvey, "Undermining Construction, The Corrosive Effect of False Self-Employment", Institute of Employment Rights,
published November 2001
25 www.dti.gov.uk/er/individual/statusdiscuss.pdf
Chapter 7
Cross-Cutting Issues
7.1 While client leadership, integrated teams and development by maximising economic and social value
tackling 'people issues' are drivers for change, there and minimising environmental impacts.
are a number of other cross-cutting issues that can
7.5 Every link of the supply chain has a critical
act as enablers or barriers to change. Some of these
contribution to make towards sustainable construction
are covered below, but the list is by no means
and development. A poorly specified brief perpetuates
exhaustive. Nevertheless, the Forum considers that, if
waste and increased costs; without integrated teams
properly managed and developed, the issues dealt with
the ability to pre-plan is lost, thereby running the risk of
here offer considerable opportunity to impact on the
even greater inefficiencies and potential accidents; an
pace of change.
undervalued and under-trained workforce make
mistakes which result in financial, environmental and,
Sustainability all too often, human cost. The construction industry
7.2 The Sustainable Construction Task Group, chaired must not accept this avoidable risk and instead it must
by Sir Martin Laing, reported on the business case for plan for sustainability. Properly qualified and competent
sustainability in the UK property sector26. It rightly people working as an integrated team with those who
emphasised the importance of whole life performance specify the project and those who can supply its needs
in securing enduring value through productivity in use. in the most efficient way possible can better manage
We embrace its conclusions as being entirely the risks and minimise impacts. Integration of supply
consistent with the aims of Accelerating Change. process can play an important part in sustainable
construction, but it also requires a step change in the
culture of the industry which will be characterised by:
“Sustainability is probably the • clients (experienced or inexperienced) procuring
most important cross-cutting and specifying sustainable construction projects,
issue. A construction industry products and services; and
that has properly embraced • a supply side that responds collaboratively to

sustainability will be a safer deliver these in a way that enables all in the
integrated supply team to maximise the added
industry and one that is value their expertise can deliver.
less wasteful. ”
UCATT
Case Study: Peabody Trust

7.3 Sustainability in its broader sense of corporate
social responsibility, is also a driver for change. In line The Beddington Zero Energy
with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's call
Development in south London
for Trade Associations to address environmental and
social impacts - alongside environmental issues - demonstrates how to create a truly
several sector organisations relating to the construction sustainable mixed-use development
industry are developing and implementing sustainable in a zero carbon environment with
development strategies. The strategic contribution of
significantly reduced utility bills for all
sustainability is integral to all aspects of this report and
is therefore interwoven with the identified key issues.27 the residents. The development
7.4 Sustainability did not feature as a core issue in
focuses on the specification of low
Rethinking Construction, primarily because it was embodied energy products and a
important at that stage to focus on the fundamental reduction in the need for individual
flaws in the construction procurement and delivery
car use. It highlights how the
process. The ability to pre-plan a project through from
start to finish is a prerequisite to designing in
construction industry can provide for
sustainability. Through pre-planning a project we can more sustainable lifestyles.
achieve the triple bottom line of sustainable
35
26 Reputation, Risk & Reward - the business case for sustainability in the UK property sector': The Report of the Sustainable Construction
Task Group, 2002 (http://projects.bre.co.uk/rrr/RRR.pdf)
27 Pioneering: the strategic route to sector sustainability, Sustainable development Commission
7.6 The industry must take responsibility for the IT and the Internet
sustainability of its products (from components to the
7.8 IT and E-business, as enablers, have already
completed structure) as well as its processes. Higher
radically transformed many operations in the
quality buildings will increase the value of the industry,
construction sector and there is still a vast potential for
improve its standing in society, and generally produce
more. IT can deliver significant benefits for designers,
structures that are cheaper to run and maintain, and
constructors and building operators. Deriving the
more pleasant to be in or use. Design quality and more
maximum benefit from introducing IT solutions will not,
sustainable processes and products should not be
however, be easy. There is the potential to drastically
added onto the end; they are achievable but only if well
reduce infrastructure cost behind the tendering side of
integrated from the very beginning of the construction
the industry by adopting the wider use of the Internet
process. And increasingly other industries are being
and e-procurement specifically.
asked to take responsibility for products from cradle to
grave, construction, too, must think about the end of 7.9 The widespread adoption of e-business and
life of buildings and components and the potential for virtual prototyping requires the construction industry to
recycling and reuse. transform its traditional methods of working and its
business relationships. Key barriers to this
Design Quality transformation include organisational and cultural
inertia, scale, awareness of the potential and
7.7 Investment in high quality design, by an integrated
knowledge of the benefits, skills, perceptions of cost
team, is crucial to the success of any construction
and risk, legal issues and standards. Weighed against
project. It is at the outset of a project that the vast
this, the potential benefits are:
majority of value can be created through design and
integration. Integrated, high quality design should • Efficiencies and skills development from knowledge
always lead to a lower cost over the lifetime of a management
building or structure. It will also contribute to improved
• Economy and speed of construction;
safety and reduced defects. To improve design
standards, the industry should adopt the use of the • Improved business relationships;
• Product and process improvement; and
• Technology and entrepreneurship.

“At present, the industry is still
making basic mistakes regarding R&D and Innovation
the construction process, and 7.10 Investment in research and development (R&D) is
ease with which construction can essential to underpin innovation and continuous
achieve quality. Why is the timber improvement. This provides value to clients, improves
profitability and the ability to compete and win in
window industry still overseas markets. Sir John Fairclough's review of
manufacturing components which Government R&D Policies and Practices, Rethinking
do not relate to brick sizes? ” Construction Innovation and Research29, endorses the
view that the Strategic Forum should take the pivotal
Architect
role in setting a strategic vision for the industry. This
will require the support of a dedicated organisation
Design Quality Indicator evaluation tool28, being which, when compared to the current Construction
developed by the CIC, CABE and others. Design has a Research and Innovation Strategy Panel (CRISP)30, will
crucial role to play in delivering that part of the vision have an expanded role and resources. The new CRISP
statement that refers to eliminating risks to health and will help to identify important issues for the industry
safety of those who construct, maintain, refurbish, and develop research strategies to address them. The
operate and have access to the construction product. Forum feels that an immediate priority is to focus
research effort on filling the industry's knowledge gap
36
28 Design Quality Indicator : www.dqi.org.uk
29 'Rethinking Construction, Innovation and Research': A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices, Sir John Fairclough, 2002
(www.dti.gov.uk/construction/main.htm)
30 Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel: www.crisp-uk.org.uk/
in the development of integrated supply teams and mechanisms that are being developed to measure
mechanisms to support them to deliver of their best, progress in the use of integrated supply teams and
such as logistics. payment practices.
Planning System
7.11 The Forum welcomes the Government's recent
'Green Papers'31 on possible reforms to the planning
system. A planning system that is fair, transparent,
timely and consistent will help drive out waste and
costs and promote responsible development.
Small Medium Sized Enterprises

7.12 Access to relevant, clear guidance for SMEs is not
always readily available. The Forum recognises the
need for the expertise and enterprise of SME's to be
harnessed to meet the agenda contained in this
document. With this in mind, the Forum will produce
a simple summary of Accelerating Change, perhaps
in the form of a wall chart, by the end of 2002.
Housing
7.13 The Housing Forum intends to meet the particular
needs of applying Accelerating Change to the housing
sector. It is considering producing a bespoke document
to reflect the particular circumstances and pressures
facing the sector. The Housebuilders Federation plans
to hold a major conference to consider Accelerating
Change from the housebuilders' perspective.
Measuring Change
7.14 In building on the work of Rethinking Construction
and delivering change to meet its objectives, it is
important to be able to monitor progress against the
strategic targets and deliverables set out in this report.
The Forum will put in place means of measuring
progress towards its targets.
7.15 Mechanisms and systems such as Design Quality

Indicators (DQIs), Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
and Environmental Performance Indicators (EPIs) to
monitor and measure progress in accelerating change
already exist. In addition, a database of the
recommendations and targets and deliverables derived
as a result of this consultation exercise should be
developed and regularly reviewed. Other useful tools to
help measure change will be generated through some
of the deliverables suggested in this report, such as the
37
31 Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change, Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, December 2001,
www.planning.dtlr.gov.uk/consult/greenpap/index.htm
Annex 1
Glossary of terms and further information

Clients' Charter
The Construction Clients' Charter sets out the minimum Frequently asked questions
standards they expect in construction procurement today, about independent client
their aspirations for the future and a programme of
advice
steadily more demanding targets that will drive standards
up in the future. By registering for the Clients' Charter
which is operated for the Confederation of Construction
Who should seek independent client advice?
Clients by their agents, Achilles Information Ltd,
construction clients commit themselves to establish, with Clients who do not feel they have the
their suppliers, a modern business culture, through a self- requisite knowledge or skills to undertake
imposed structured programme of change, supported by all the steps required for the successful
measurement against nationally accepted criteria and the identification and delivery of a business
exchange of best practice experience. Details of the solution.
Clients' Charter are available on
www.clientsuccess@archives.com
What is the extent of the advice?
Construction Skills Certification Input and help can vary throughout the life
Scheme - CSCS of a project. Clients should not assume that
they need help for the entire process.
CSCS seeks to improve the construction industry's health Advice could be sought to deliver a peer
and safety performance by identifying workers who have review at critical stages, for clients
achieved a recognised level of competence in skills and undertaking the process themselves, or be
health and safety. CSCS is a reference point for engaged to assist in the entire process or
construction employers who wish to use recognised at specific stages.
skilled workers and is a move towards a more qualified
workforce.
What is meant by ‘independent’ advice?
Continuing personal and professional Objective advice free from any vested
interest in a solution proposed as a result of
development the assistance given.
CPD (Continuing Personal/Professional Development) is
defined as the holistic commitment to structured skills
enhancement and personal or professional competence. What is the role of people offering this
advice?
Gateways They should have a non-executive role

acting as a mentor to the client. They
Gateways are critical predetermined points throughout should not act as a surrogate or proxy
the life of a project. Before a gateway can be passed a client. They should facilitate and assist the
review of all the project information and decisions to that client in fulfilling their requirements in
date should be undertaken, preferably by a team of delivering the business solution but the
experienced people, independent of the project team. ultimate decisions taken remain the
The project should not proceed to the next stage until responsibility of the client. This is a very
satisfactory completion of the gateway review. different service to that provided by a
project manager.
Independent Client Advice

Chapter 4 sets out the rationale for inexperienced and Which discipline will the people offering this
one-off clients who do not have the necessary skills to advice come from?
assess and articulate their business needs to have They could come from any number of
access to independent advice if they are to achieve disciplines. The key to the successful
successful business solutions. delivery of this role is their background
experience and temperament.
38
Integrated Team
An integrated team includes the client and those involved
in the delivery process who are pivotal in providing
solutions that will meet the clients requirements. Thus
those involved in asset development, designing,
manufacturing, assembling and constructing, proving,
operating and maintaining, will have the opportunity to
add maximum value by being integrated around common
objectives, processes, culture/ values, and reward & risk.
An integrated team requires team members to harness
the potential of their integrated supply chains.
Integrated Supply Chain

An integrated supply chain is focused on the processes
associated with the reduction of the total cost of the
supply chain, including, but not limited to, design,
procurement, inventory management and product
installation. A totally integrated supply-chain enables an
end-user to more effectively and cost-efficiently manage
manufacturing, inventory and transaction costs. In a true
integrated supply relationship, the customer and the
integrated supply partner analyse every aspect of the
supply-chain process (acquisition, storage, logistics,
installation, post-shipment support, information systems,
etc.) and then streamline each component, eliminating
redundancy of effort and cost, and improving service
levels.
Logistics
Logistics is the process used to manage the flow of
goods and materials, equipment, services and people
though the supply chain
Supply Chain Management

Supply chain management is the process by which one
optimises the flow of goods and materials from supplier
to the point of use.
Sustainability
As used in 'Reputation, Risk and Reward', a report by the
Sustainable Construction Task Group chaired by Sir
Martin Laing: "Sustainability represents the balancing of
social, environmental and economic concerns whilst
recognising that decisions made today will have very real
implications for future generations". Further information
on 'Reputation, Risk and Reward' can be found at
www.bre.co.uk and www.cbpp.org.uk.
39
Key steps a client must consider
Annex 2 :
when faced with a business need
This section sets out in more detail the key steps a Step 2 - Assessment of options
Client must fulfil and if required what form the advice
1. Develop and appraise all the options.
may take. This is an initial overview of this concept and
will require further refinement over the coming months 2. Research the learning from past experience (both
(see figure 4). your own and others experience).
There are various models that describe the 3. Review the preferred option with the business
procurement process over its whole life, from the stakeholders and confirm that it will deliver the
identification of a business need to the completion of a business needs and objectives, is realistic and
contract for goods or services, or the disposal of an meets the requirements in relation to risk and
asset. Different models are appropriate to different constraints.
circumstances and the following outline is not intended
to be prescriptive. But it reflects key stages in such Outcome:
models and a common theme that it is important to get
the initial steps right if a project is to be successful. A robust business case that meets all the business
requirements.
Step 1 - Verification of need If the preferred option requires a construction phase:
1. Accurately identify and articulate the need.

Step 3 - Develop Procurement
2. Identify the key objectives and outcomes that the
strategy
business wants to achieve.
1. Research the options for procuring the project and
3. Prioritise the objectives.
determine the strategy.
4. Identify the stakeholders.
2. Research the learning from past experience (both
5. Identify business attitude to risk. your own and others experience).
6. Identify and prioritise significant constraints eg 3. Confirm project performance criteria.

financial, legal, time, technology, and business
4. Review business plan, financial requirements and
change.
risks, and controls.
7. Identify internal project structure and ownership.
5. Confirm stakeholder commitment.
6. Confirm that the procurement approach will

Outcome:
support and encourage good client/supplier
Clear statement of the business needs embracing relations.
priorities, objectives, stakeholders and constraints.
Outcome:
Strategic Brief articulating, in the client's terminology,
the project objectives, needs, priorities, constraints,
budget, programme, decision making framework,
measures of success and method of selection for the
most appropriate delivery of the required business
solution.
40
Step 4 - Implement Procurement
strategy
Implement the procurement strategy and select the
team best placed to delivery the required business
solution. (Throughout this process the Client, by his
actions, will set the tone by which he expects the
project to be delivered.)
Step 5 - Project delivery

1. Validate and improve the Strategic Brief.
2. Brief the team regarding all aspects of the project

(Needs, objectives, risks, constraints and
stakeholders.)
3. Implement appropriate and agreed performance

measurements.
4. Ensure new members brought into the team are

inducted with regard to the business needs,
objectives and method of delivery.
5. Make appropriate and timely decisions always

referring back to and validating the project
objectives.
6. Advise the business on steps to be taken for

regarding the implementation and operation of the new
asset.
Outcome:
Project team fully focused on delivering the most
appropriate solution to meet the client's business
needs within the agreed parameters and a business
prepared to embrace the new asset within its
operations.
Step 6 - Post Project Review

1. Undertake assessment of new asset
2. Measure final delivery performance against the

targets set.
3. Review project history.
Outcome:
Capture project learning to confirm benefits and to
inform future projects.
41
Annex 3
Publications and useful websites

Publications Useful Websites
'Rethinking Construction': The Report of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment:
Construction Task Force, 1998 www.cabe.org.uk
Reputation, Risk & Reward - the business case for Confederation of Construction Clients:
sustainability in the UK property sector': The Report of www.clientsuccess.org.uk
the Sustainable Construction Task Group, 2002.
Construction Best Practice Programme:
'Rethinking Construction, Innovation and Research': A www.cbpp.org.uk/cbpp/
Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices, Sir
Construction Industry Council: www.cic.org.uk
John Fairclough, 2002
Construction Industry Training Board:
"A commitment to people - our Biggest Asset" - A
www.citb.org.uk/citb_home.htm
report from the Movement for Innovation's working
group on Respect for People, November 2000. Construction Research and Innovation Strategy Panel:
www.crisp-uk.org.uk/
Building a better quality of life: A strategy for more
sustainable construction, DETR, April 2000 Department of Trade and Industry's Construction
Pages: www.dti.gov.uk/construction/
Achieving Sustainability in Construction Procurement,
Sustainability Action Group of the Design Quality Indicators www.dqi.org.uk
Government Construction Clients' Panel (GCCP), June Health and Safety Executive: www.hse.gov.uk
2000
Her Majesty's Stationary Office: www.hmso.gov.uk
Planning: Delivering a Fundamental Change,
Housing Forum: www.thehousingforum.org.uk
Department of Transport, Local Government and the
Regions, December 2001 Local Government Task Force: www.lgtf.org.uk
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations Movement for Innovation: www.m4i.org.uk

1994: Office of Government Commerce: www.ogc.gov.uk
www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si1994/Uksi_19943140_en_1.htm
Rethinking Construction:
www.rethinkingconstruction.org
OGC Publications
No.1: Essential Requirements for Construction
Procurement Guide
No.2: Value for Money in Construction Procurement
No.3: Appointment of Consultants and Contractors
No.4: Teamworking, Partnering and Incentives
No.5: Procurement Strategies
No.6: Financial Aspects of Projects
No.7: Whole Life Costs
No.8: Project Evaluation and Feedback
No.9: Benchmarking
No 10: Achieving Excellence through Health and Safety
42
To obtain extra copies of
this report please contact
108/110 Judd Street

London, WC1H 9PX
Telephone: 020 7837 5702
Facsimile: 020 7813 3060
www.rethinkingconstruction.org
£15
ISBN 1 898671 28 1
Published by Rethinking Construction
c/o Construction Industry Council, 26 Store St., London WC1E 7BT
CIFE CENTER FOR INTEGRATED FACILITY ENGINEERING
APPLICATION OF
THE NEW PRODUCTION PHILOSOPHY
TO CONSTRUCTION
By
Lauri Koskela
CIFE Technical Report #72

September, 1992
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Copyright © 1992 by
Lauri Koskela
If you would like to contact the author please write to:
VTT Building Technology

P.O. Box 1801
FIN-02044 VTT
Finland
e-mail address: lauri.koskela@vtt.fi
Summary: TECHNICAL REPORT #72
Title: Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction
Author: Lauri Koskela
VTT Building Technology
P.O. Box 1801
FIN-02044 VTT
Finland
e-mail: lauri.koskela@vtt.fi
Date: August, 1992
Funding: The study has been realized during the stay of the author as a Visiting Scholar
at CIFE. Funded by Technical Research Centre of Finland, the Federation of
the Finnish Building Industry and the Wihuri Foundation.
1. Abstract: The background and development of the new production philosophy are
presented. The conceptual basis of the traditional and the new production
philosophies, as applied in manufacturing, are examined. The traditional conceptual
basis of construction is criticized, and an initial new interpretation of construction is
given based on the new philosophy. Finally, the challenges of implementing the new
production philosophy in construction are considered.
2. Subject: The term “new production philosophy” refers to an evolving set of
methodologies, techniques and tools, the genesis of which was in the Japanese JIT and
TQC efforts in car manufacturing. Several alternative names are presently used to refer
to this philosophy: lean production, JIT/TQC, world class manufacturing, time based
competition. In manufacturing, great gains in performance have been realized by this
new production philosophy. With the exception of quality methodologies, this new
philosophy is little known in construction.
3. Objectives/Benefits: The goal of this report is to assess whether or not the new
production philosophy has implications for construction.
4. Methodology: The study consisted mainly of a literature review and a conceptual
analysis and synthesis. In the last stage of the study, four engineering or construction
companies were visited to ascertain the present level of implementation of the new
philosophy.
5. Results: Construction should adopt the new production philosophy. In manufacturing,
the new production philosophy improves competitiveness by identifying and
eliminating waste (non value-adding) activities. Traditionally, construction is viewed
and modeled only as a series of conversion (value-adding) activities. For example,
waste activities such as waiting, storing inventory, moving material, and inspection are
not generally modeled by Critical Path Models (CPM) or other control tools.
Construction has traditionally tried to improve competitiveness by making conversions
incrementally more efficient. But judging from the manufacturing experience,
construction could realize dramatic improvements simply by identifying and
eliminating non conversion (non value-adding) activities. In other words, actual
construction should be viewed as flow processes (consisting of both waste and
conversion activities), not just conversion processes. As demonstrated previously by
the manufacturing industry's experience, adoption of the new production philosophy
will be a fundamental paradigm shift for the construction industry. The implications of
this for design is that the process of construction must be developed in conjunction
with the design itself.
An initial set of design and improvement principles for flow processes is presented that
can serve as an implementation guideline.
Major development efforts in construction, like industrialization, computer integrated

construction and construction automation have to be redefined to acknowledge the
need to balance flow improvement and conversion improvement.
The conceptual foundation of construction management and engineering, being based

on the concept of conversion only, is obsolete. Formalization of the scientific
foundations of construction management and engineering should be a primary long
term task for research.
6. Research status: This exploratory study raises a series of research questions. Some of
them are currently addressed in other ongoing CIFE projects. For example, the
relation between process improvement and technical integration is assessed in the
study on integration’s impact on plant quality. Other questions will be addressed in
future CIFE projects.
The author will continue this line of research at the Technical Research Centre of
Finland, focusing on problems of implementation.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary 2
Acknowledgements 3
1. Introduction 4
2. New production philosophy: origin, development and main ideas 5
2.1 Origins and diffusion 5
2.2 Main ideas and techniques 5
2.3 Conceptual evolution 8
2.4 Benefits 9
3. New production philosophy: conceptual basis 11
3.1 What is a production philosophy? 11
3.2 Conceptual basis of the conventional production philosophy 12
3.3 Conceptual basis of the new production philosophy 15
3.4 Principles for flow process design and improvement 17
3.5 Continuous improvement vs. innovation 24
3.6 Measurements in continuous improvement 26
3.7 Implementation of the new philosophy 27
3.8 Conclusions 28
4. Construction as activity 30
4.1 The traditional conceptualization of construction 30
4.2 Flow problems caused by conventional managerial concepts 31
4.3 Waste and value loss in construction 34
4.4 Detrimental impact on development efforts 36
4.5 Conclusions 37
5. Construction as flow 38
5.1 Flow processes in construction 38
5.2 Measures for construction 41
5.3 Overcoming flow problems caused by conventional managerial
concepts 42
5.4 Overcoming flow problems caused by the peculiarities of
construction 44
5.5 Conclusions 50
6. Implementation of the new production philosophy in construction 51
6.1 Present status of implementation: experiences and barriers 51
6.2 Implementation of process improvement by engineering and
construction organizations 56
6.3 Redefining major development efforts in construction 57
6.4 Research and education in construction 62
6.5 Conclusions 64
7. Summary 65
Bibliography 68
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. In manufacturing, great gains in performance have been realized by a new production

philosophy. In construction, this new philosophy is little known.
2. The conventional thinking views production as conversion processes. The new philosophy
views production as consisting of both conversions and flows. Only conversions add value.
This has fundamental implications for design, control and improvement of production
processes.
3. The improvement of flow activities should primarily be focused on reducing or eliminating
them, whereas conversion activities have to be made more efficient. An initial set of design
and improvement principles for flow processes has evolved.
4. In construction, conceptualization of production is based on the conversion process
model, as formerly in manufacturing.
5. According to the new view, a construction project consists of three basic flows (design
process, material process and work process) and supporting flows. For most participating
organizations, these processes repeat from project to project with moderate variations.
6. Traditional managerial concepts, based on the conversion conceptualization, have ignored
and often deteriorated flows in construction.
7. As a consequence of traditional managerial concepts, construction is characterized by a
high share of non value-adding activities and resultant low productivity.
8. The peculiarities of construction (one-of-a-kind projects, site production, temporary
organization) often prevent the attainment of flows as efficient as those in stationary
manufacturing. However, the general principles for flow design, control and improvement
apply: construction flows can be improved, in spite of these peculiarities.
9. Due to deficient conceptualization, such development efforts as industrialization and
computer integrated construction have often been misdirected. The resultant neglect of
process improvement has become a barrier for progress.
10. The concept of process improvement provides a framework, which can - and should - be
immediately applied in all construction industry organizations.
11. Measures, which directly pinpoint improvement potential (waste or value) and facilitate
targeting and monitoring of improvement, are crucial for implementation of process
improvement.
12. The conceptual basis of construction management and engineering is obsolete.
Formalization of the scientific foundations of construction management and engineering
should be a primary long term task for research.
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was made possible through grants from the Technical Research Centre of
Finland, the Federation of the Finnish Building Industry and the Wihuri Foundation. The
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering (CIFE) at Stanford University provided for office
facilities, advice and a stimulating environment. Special thanks are due to the Director of
CIFE, Professor Paul Teicholz and the advisor for this study, Professor Bob Tatum. The
language of the report was checked by Kelly Jean Fergusson.
I also wish to thank the persons in the companies I visited, who gave generously of their time,
and who willingly shared their experiences in process improvement: Bechtel, Brown & Root,
Hensel & Phelps, The M.W. Kellogg Company.
The ideas of the report, in their various stages, were commented upon by several faculty
members and students in the Department of Civil Engineering and the Center for Integrated
Facility Engineering at Stanford University. Valuable feedback was also given by construction
faculty members of UC Berkeley.
3
1 Introduction
The problems of construction are well-known. Construction productivity lags that of
manufacturing. Occupational safety is notoriously worse than in other industries. Due to
inferior working conditions, there are work force shortages in many countries’ construction
sector. The quality of construction is considered to be insufficient.
A number of solutions or visions have been offered to relieve the chronic problems in
construction. Industrialization (i.e. prefabrication and modularization) has for a long time been
viewed as one direction of progress. Currently, computer integrated construction is seen as an
important way to reduce fragmentation in construction, which is considered to be a major
cause of existing problems. The vision of robotized and automated construction, closely
associated with computer integrated construction, is another solution promoted by
researchers.
Manufacturing has been a reference point and a source of innovations in construction for
many decades. For example, the idea of industrialization comes directly from manufacturing.
Computer integration and automation also have their origin in manufacturing, where their
implementation is well ahead compared to construction.
Now, there is another development trend in manufacturing, the impact of which appears to be
much greater than that of information and automation technology. This trend, which is based
on a new production philosophy, rather than on new technology, stresses the importance of
basic theories and principles related to production processes. However, because it has been
developed by practitioners in a process of trial and error, the nature of this approach as a
philosophy escaped the attention of both professional and academic circles until the end of
1980’s.
In construction, there has been rather little interest in this new production philosophy. The
goal of this report is to assess whether or not the new production philosophy has implications
for construction.
The study on which this report is based consisted mainly of a literature review and a
conceptual analysis and synthesis. In the last stage of the study, four companies were visited
to ascertain the present level of implementation of the new approach. Findings from
companies are presented as anecdotal evidence in support of argumentation.
The structure of the report is as follows. In Chapter 2, the background and development of
the new production philosophy are presented. In Chapter 3, the conceptual basis of the
traditional and the new production philosophies, as applied in manufacturing, are examined.
Chapter 4 analyzes and critiques the traditional conceptual basis of construction. An
interpretation of construction based on the new philosophy is given in Chapter 5. Next, the
implementation of the new production philosophy in construction is considered in Chapter 6.
Finally, Chapter 7 contains a short summary of the report.
4
2 New production philosophy: origin, development, and
main ideas
2.1 Origins and diffusion
The ideas of the new production philosophy first originated in Japan in the 1950's. The most
prominent application was the Toyota production system. The basic idea in the Toyota
production system is the elimination of inventories and other waste through small lot
production, reduced set-up times, semiautonomous machines, co-operation with suppliers,
and other techniques (Monden 1983, Ohno 1988, Shingo 1984, Shingo 1988).
Simultaneously, quality issues were attended to by Japanese industry under the guidance of
American consultants like Deming, Juran and Feigenbaum. Quality philosophy evolved from a
statistical method of quality assurance to a wider approach, including quality circles and other
tools for company-wide development.
These ideas were developed and refined by industrial engineers in a long process of trial and
error; establishment of theoretical background and wider presentation of the approach was not
seen as necessary. Consequently, up to the beginning of the 1980's, information and
understanding of the new approach in the West was limited. However, the ideas diffused to
Europe and America starting in about 1975, especially in the automobile industry.
During the 1980's, a wave of books were published which analyzed and explained the
approach in more detail (Deming 1982, Schonberger 1982, Schonberger 1986, Hayes & al.
1988, O’Grady 1988, Garvin 1988, Berangér 1987, Edosomwan 1990).
In the beginning of the 1990’s, the new production philosophy, which is known by several
different names (world class manufacturing, lean production, new production system) is the
emerging mainstream approach. It is practiced, at least partially, by major manufacturing
companies in America and Europe. The new approach has also diffused to new fields, like
customized production (Ashton & Cook 1989), services, administration (Harrington 1991),
and product development.
In the meantime, the new production philosophy has been undergoing further development,
primarily in Japan. New approaches and tools have been established to augment the
philosophy, such as Quality Function Deployment (QFD) (Akao 1990), Taguchi-method,
design for manufacture, etc.
In Japan, the spearhead organization for the new approach is the New Production System
(NPS) Research Association, formed in 1982 for refining and implementing the new
production system in member companies (Shinohara 1988).
2.2 Main ideas and techniques

2.2.1 Overview
Several factors make it difficult to present a coherent overview of the ideas and techniques of
the new production philosophy. The field is young1 and in constant evolution. New
1 The first scholarly paper in English was published in 1977 (Golhar & Stamm 1991).
5
concepts emerge and the content of old concepts change. The same concept is used to refer to
a phenomenon on several levels of abstraction. It is not clear where to place the boundaries
between related concepts.
We have chosen to base this overview on two historically important “root” terms, Just In
Time (JIT) and Total Quality Control (TQC), which are outlined briefly below. Next we
present related newer concepts, which are primarily outgrowths of JIT and TQC. These
outgrowths show that the field of application of the original ideas has extended far beyond the
production sphere.
2.2.2 Just In Time (JIT)
The starting point of the new production philosophy was in industrial engineering oriented
developments initiated by Ohno and Shingo at Toyota car factories in the 1950’s. The driving
idea in the approach was reduction or elimination of inventories (work in progress). This, in
turn, led to other techniques that were forced responses to coping with less inventory: lot size
reduction, layout reconfiguration, supplier co-operation, and set-up time reduction. The pull
type production control method, where production is initiated by actual demand rather than by
plans based on forecasts, was introduced.
The concept of waste is one cornerstone of JIT. The following wastes were recognized by
Shingo (1984): overproduction, waiting, transporting, too much machining (overprocessing),
inventories, moving, making defective parts and products. Elimination of waste through
continuous improvement of operations, equipment and processes is another cornerstone of
JIT2.
2.2.3 Total Quality Control (TQC)
The starting point of the quality movement was the inspection of raw materials and products
using statistical methods. The quality movement in Japan has evolved from mere inspection of
products to total quality control. The term total refers to three extensions (Shingo 1988): (1)
expanding quality control from production to all departments, (2) expanding quality control
from workers to management, and (3) expanding the notion of quality to cover all operations
in the company.
The quality methodologies have developed in correspondence with the evolution of the
concept of quality. The focus has changed from an inspection orientation (sampling theory),
through process control (statistical process control and the seven tools3), to continuous
process improvement (the new seven tools4), and presently to designing quality into the
product and process (Quality Function Deployment).
There has always been friction between the JIT camp and the quality camp. Representatives of
the JIT camp tend to stress process improvement (Harmon 1992) and error checking at the
source (Shingo 1986) rather than statistical control and quality programs.
2 For a short discussion of JIT, see (Walleigh 1986). For opposing views, see (Zipkin 1991).
3 Pareto-diagram, cause-and-effect diagram, histogram, control chart, scatter diagram, graph and checksheet.
4 Relations diagram, affinity diagram, tree diagram, matrix diagram, matrix data-analysis diagram, process
decision program chart, arrow diagram.
6
2.2.4 Related concepts
Many new concepts have surfaced from JIT and TQC efforts. These have been rapidly
elaborated and extended, starting a life of their own. Several of these concepts are described
below.
Total Productive Maintenance (TPM)

Total productive maintenance refers to autonomous maintenance of production machinery by
small groups of multi-skilled operators (Nakajima 1988). TPM strives to maximize production
output by maintaining ideal operating conditions. Nakajima states that without TPM, the
Toyota production system could not function.
Employee involvement
There are several reasons for employee involvement (for a good, concise discussion, see
Walton 1985). Rapid response to problems requires empowerment of workers. Continuous
improvement is heavily dependent on day-to-day observation and motivation of the work
force, hence the idea of quality circles (Lillrank & Kano 1989). In order to avoid waste
associated with division of labor, multi-skilled and/or self-directed teams have been
established for product/project/customer based production.
Continuous improvement
Continuous improvement, associated with JIT and TQC, has emerged as a theme in itself
especially after the book by Imai (1986). A key idea is to maintain and improve the working
standards through small, gradual improvements. The inherent wastes (as characterized in
section 2.2.2) in the process are natural targets for continuous improvement. The term
“learning organization” refers partly to the capability of maintaining continuous improvement
(Senge 1990).
Benchmarking
Benchmarking refers to comparing one’s current performance against the world leader in any
particular area (Camp 1989, Compton 1992). In essence, it means finding and implementing
the best practices in the world. Benchmarking is essentially a goal-setting procedure, which
tries to break down complacency and NIH-attitudes (not invented here). It focuses on
business processes, rather than the technologies used in them. The procedure of benchmarking
was formalized in the 1980’s based on work done at Xerox (Camp 1989). Japanese companies
informally applied benchmarking earlier.
Time based competition

The book by Stalk and Hout (1990) popularized this term. Time based competition refers to
compressing time throughout the organization for competitive benefit. Essentially, this is a
generalization of the JIT philosophy, well-known to the JIT pioneers. Ohno states that
shortening lead time creates benefits such as a decrease in the work not related to processing,
a decrease in the inventory, and ease of problem identification (Robinson 1991). Time based
competition has become popular, especially in administrative and information work where the
JIT concepts sound unfamiliar.
7
Concurrent engineering
Concurrent (or simultaneous) engineering deals primarily with the product design phase. As
far as is known, it did not originate directly from JIT or TQC, even though it is based on
similar ideas. The term refers to an improved design process characterized by rigorous upfront
requirements analysis, incorporating the constraints of subsequent phases into the conceptual
phase, and tightening of change control towards the end of the design process. In comparison
to the traditional sequential design process, iteration cycles are transferred to the initial phases
through teamwork. Compression of the design time, increase of the number of iterations, and
reduction of the number of change orders are three major objectives of concurrent
engineering.
Various tools for concurrent engineering have been developed, such as the principles and
systems used in Design for Assembly and Design for Manufacturability.
Value based strategy (or management)
Value based strategy refers to “conceptualized and clearly articulated value as the basis for
competing” (Carothers & Adams 1991). Firms driven by value based strategies are customer-
oriented, in contrast to competitor-oriented firms. Continuous improvement to increase
customer value is one essential characteristic of value based management.
Visual management
Visual management is an orientation towards visual control in production, quality and
workplace organization (Greif 1991). The goal is to render the standard to be applied and a
deviation from it immediately recognizable by anybody. This is one of the original JIT ideas,
which has been systematically applied only recently in the West .
Re-engineering
This term refers to the radical reconfiguration of processes and tasks, especially with respect
to implementation of information technology (for example Hammer 1990, Davenport & Short
1990, Rockart & Short 1989). According to Hammer, recognizing and breaking away from
outdated rules and fundamental assumptions is the key issue in re-engineering.
Lean production, world class manufacturing
Rather than defining a specific set of methods, these terms are loosely used to refer to an
intensive use of the ideas of the new production philosophy.
2.3 Conceptual evolution

The conception of the new production philosophy has evolved through three stages (Plenert
1990). It has been understood primarily as
- a set of tools (like kanban and quality circles)
- a manufacturing method (like JIT)
- a general management philosophy (referred to as lean production, world class
manufacturing, JIT/TQC, time based competition, etc.).
This progression is due to the characteristics of the new approach as an engineering-based
innovation in contrast to a science-based innovation. The practical application of the new
8
philosophy began and was diffused without any scientific, formalized basis: factory visits, case
descriptions and consultants have been the means of technology transfer.
The conception of the new production philosophy as a general management philosophy was
first promoted by Deming (1982), Schonberger (1990), the NPS Research Association
(Shinohara 1988) and Plossl (1991). Each has formulated a set of implementation principles.
A number of definitions of the new production philosophy are exhibited in Table 1. Even a
superficial analysis shows that they differ widely. The theoretical and conceptual
understanding of the new production approach is still limited. In spite of initial efforts to raise
the abstraction level of the definition (as evident with Plossl, Table 1), there is as yet no
unified, coherent and consistent theory. Rather, the new approach could be characterized as a
research frontier - an extremely fruitful one.
2.4 Benefits
The benefits of the new production philosophy in terms of productivity, quality and other
indicators have been tangible enough in practice to ensure a rapid diffusion of the new
principles. However, the benefits have received surprisingly little study by scholars.
In a statistical study covering 400 manufacturing plants, mostly in the U.S. and Europe, it was
found that of all the possible techniques for improving productivity, only those related to the
new philosophy (termed JIT) are demonstrably effective (Schmenner 1988).
One of the best researched industries is car manufacturing (Womack & al. 1990). Lean car
production is characterized as using less of everything compared with mass production: half
the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the investments in tools,
half the engineering hours to develop a new product in half the time.
The same order of magnitude of benefits in other industries is substantiated by other authors.
For example, improvement results from applying lean production in a wide variety of plants
are reported by Schonberger (1986) and Harmon and Peterson (1990). Japanese companies
have typically doubled factory productivity rates over a 5 year period while implementing the
new principles (Stalk & Hout 1989). A reduction of manufacturing space by 50 % is a typical
target (Harmon and Peterson 1990).
The competitive benefits created by means of the new approach seem to be remarkably
sustainable. Toyota, the first adopter, has had a consistent lead in stock turnover and
productivity as compared to its Japanese competitors (Lieberman 1990).
9
Table 1. Definitions of the new production philosophy.
Goals of the Toyota production system according to Monden (1983):
The Toyota production system completely eliminates unnecessary elements in production for
the purpose of cost reduction. The basic idea is to produce the kind of units needed, at the
time needed, and in quantities needed. The system has three subgoals:
1. Quantity control, which enables the system to adapt to daily and monthly fluctuations
in terms of quantities and variety.
2. Quality assurance, which assures that each process will supply only good units to
subsequent processes.
3. Respect for humanity, which must be cultivated while the system utilizes the human
resource to attain its cost objectives.
The basic philosophy of the new production system according to the NPS Research
Association (Shinohara 1988):
1. To seek a production technology that uses a minimum amount of equipment and labor
to produce defect-free goods in the shortest possible time with the least amount of
unfinished goods left over, and
2. To regard as waste any element that does not contribute to meeting the quality, price,
or delivery deadline required by the customer, and to strive to eliminate all waste
through concerted efforts by the administration, R&D, production, distribution,
management, and all other departments of the company.
The organizational features of a lean plant according to Womack & al. (1990):
It transfers the maximum number of tasks and responsibilities to those workers actually adding
value to the product on line, and it has in place a system for detecting defects that quickly
traces every problem, once discovered, to its ultimate cause.
First law of manufacturing according to Plossl (1991):
In manufacturing operations, all benefits will be directly proportional to the speed of flow of
materials and information.
Corollary 1: This law applies to every type of manufacturing business.

Corollary 2: The tightness of control of manufacturing activities will vary inversely with
their cycle times.
Corollary 3: Any planning and control system will be more effective with fewer problems
causing slower rates of materials and information.
Corollary 4: Solving one problem which slows down or interrupts material or information
flow will cost less and be more effective than efforts to cope with the
problem’s effects.
10
3 New production philosophy: conceptual basis
A basic tenet of this report is that lack of theoretical understanding has greatly hampered the
diffusion of the new production philosophy to industries which do not have many similarities
with car production. An explicit, preferably formalized theoretical basis is necessary for
transfer of the new philosophy to new settings and for effective education.
In the following, we first define a production philosophy and then proceed to analyze the
traditional production philosophy. After observing certain flaws in the traditional conceptual
basis, the essential elements of the new production philosophy are presented. A number of
design and improvement principles, implicit in the various practical approaches of the new
production philosophy, are examined. Finally, other important implications of the new
philosophy are considered.
3.1 What is a production philosophy?
The answer to the above question is not self-evident. As Bloch argues, this lack of definition
may be associated with the fact that there is presently no science of manufacturing (Heim &
Compton, p. 16). Rather, production has been seen as the task of applying existing technology
in a systematic way.
A study (Heim & Compton 1992) by the Committee on Foundations of Manufacturing1 is a
noteworthy effort to define production philosophy, which the Committee calls “foundations of
manufacturing”:
“The foundations for a field of knowledge provide the basic principles, or theories, for
that field. Foundations consist of fundamental truths, rules, laws, doctrines, or
motivating forces on which other, more specific operating principles can be based.
While the foundations need not always be quantitative, they must provide guidance in
decision making and operations. They must be action oriented, and their application
should be expected to lead to improved performance.”
Another interesting characterization is provided by Umble and Srikanth (1990), who require a
manufacturing philosophy to contain the following elements:
- Definition of the common goal in terms that are understandable and meaningful to
everyone in the organization.
- Development of the causal relationships between individual actions and the common
global goal.
- Guidelines for managing the various actions so as to achieve the greatest benefit.
The discussion on paradigm shifts, initiated by Kuhn, is also valid for production philosophies.
Paradigms, according to Kuhn (Smith & al. 1991):
- direct the ways problems are posed and solved
- indicate given assumptions
- indicate values, such as priorities and choice of problems and goals
- indicate exemplars which display the thinking.
Although originally used to refer to scientific activity, the term paradigm is now used in other
contexts as well. In manufacturing, people have beliefs about good practice and models of the
production process guiding their decisions and actions. However, due to the
1 Assembled in 1989 by the National Academy of Engineering of the United States.
11
lack of an explicit production philosophy, such individual paradigms have often evolved from
beliefs or rules of thumb that derive from personal experience (Heim & Compton 1992). They
are often situation dependent and impossible to generalize or to apply in a new situation.
Paradigms are often implicit. They are adopted by a process of socialization into a craft or an
organization, forming “practitioner’s knowledge”. This often makes it difficult to discuss the
paradigm, or to argue for the need of a more detailed and accurate paradigm. However, the
lack of an adequate paradigm can be recognized. A direct association of a solution to a
problem often seems to indicate that the paradigm is too shallow; the many complexities of the
situation are not perceived. Often paradigms are considered so self-evident that they hardly
get mentioned. For example, textbooks in industrial engineering or construction engineering
rarely begin with the foundations of the subject, but proceed to the treatment of individual
techniques after introductory remarks.
However, there are several problems associated with implicit paradigms. Such paradigms are
not generalizable or testable; their domain of feasibility is not known so applying them to new
situations is problematic; their transfer and teaching is difficult. Thus, it is natural that the
progress of a field often leads to increasing explicitness and formalization of the paradigm or
philosophy.
Thus, in trying to understand the new philosophy, there is the dual task of uncovering the core
in both the old and the new philosophies.
3.2 Conceptual basis of the conventional production philosophy
3.2.1 The conversion model
The conceptual model dominating the conventional view of production is the conversion
model and its associated notions of organization and management. Up until recently these
models have been self-evident, often implicit, and beyond criticism.
Production as a conversion process may be defined as follows:
1. A production process is a conversion of an input to an output.
Several disciplines (economics and industrial engineering, for example) have used this idea as
a basis for understanding production. The model, illustrated in Figure 1, allows for convenient
measurements, such as those of productivity, e.g. the ratio of output to the input (or a
particular part of it) in a given time period. Thus, even if we do not have the conversion
process in mind, our concepts and measurements often implicitly reflect this model.
However, for practical application to complex production situations, more features are
needed. Though rarely stated explicitly, the following statements seem to be used in
conjunction with the conversion model:
2. The conversion process can be divided into subprocesses, which also are conversion
processes.
3. The cost of the total process can be minimized by minimizing the cost of each
subprocess.
4. The value of the output of a process is associated with costs (or value) of inputs to
that process.
12
Material,
labor Products
Production
Production
process
process
Subprocess Subprocess
A B
Figure 1. The conventional view of a production process as a conversion process that can be
divided hierarchically into subprocesses.
Statements 2 and 3 are especially related to the theories of control in a hierarchical

organization. Conventional accounting theory, which supports this mode of control, is based
on the following assumptions (Umble & Srikanth 1990):
- total cost of the production process equals the sum of the costs of each operation
- the total cost of each operation (excluding material cost) is proportional to the cost of
direct labor for that operation
This standard cost procedure is reversed when estimating the profitability of an equipment
investment. If the labor cost of any operation can be reduced, the total cost will be reduced by
both respective labor cost and the associated overhead cost. Thus the financial impact of any
particular change on the whole production process can be determined. Attention can be
focused on cost management in each operation, subprocess or department. In a hierarchical
organization the costs of each organizational unit have thus to be minimized.
As suggested by statement 4, value is not very important in the traditional philosophy. Value
of the output can be raised by using better material and more skilled specialists, the costs of
which are higher. The following quote from an influential early accounting theoretician defines
value: “...value of any commodity, service, or condition, utilized in production, passes over
into the object or product for which the original item was expended and attaches to the result,
giving it its value.” (from Johnson & Kaplan 1987).
3.2.2 The conventional conceptual model is false
However, there are well-grounded theoretical arguments (Shingo 1988) and substantial
empirical evidence from manufacturing which shows that the conversion process model, as
applied to analyze and manage productive operations, is misleading or even false. The critique
comes from two sources: JIT and TQC.
JIT critique
By focusing on conversions, the model abstracts away physical flows between conversions.
These flows consist of moving, waiting and inspecting activities. In a way,
13
this is a correct idealization; from the customer point of view these activities are not needed
since they do not add value to the end product. However, in practice, the model has been
interpreted so that (1) these non value-adding activities can be left out of consideration or (2)
all activities are conversion activities, and are therefore treated as value-adding.
These erroneous interpretations are present in conventional production control methods and
performance improvement efforts. The principle of cost minimization of each subprocess leads
to the need for buffers that allow high utilization rates. It also leads to a situation where the
impact of a particular subprocess on efficiency of other subprocesses tends to be
unconsidered. Performance improvement is focused on improving the efficiency of
subprocesses, typically with new technology. This, in turn, leads to improvement of and
investment in non value-adding activities, which would be better suppressed or eliminated.
By focusing only on control and improvement of conversion subprocesses, the conversion
model not only neglects, but even deteriorates overall flow efficiency. Unfortunately, in the
more complex production processes, a major part of total costs are caused by flow activities
rather than conversions. In fact, leading authorities in production control attribute the fact that
“manufacturing is out of control in most companies” directly to the neglect of flows (Plossl
1991). In addition, poor ability to control manufacturing makes improving conversion
processes more difficult: “Major investments in new equipment are not the solution to a
confused factory” (Hayes & al. 1988).
Quality critique
The critique from the quality point of view addresses the following two features2:
- the output of each conversion is usually variable, to such an extent that a share of the
output does not fulfill the implicit or explicit specification for that conversion and has
to be scrapped or reworked
- the specification for each conversion is imperfect; it only partially reflects the true
requirements of the subsequent conversions and the final customer.
The conversion model does not include these features, thus suggesting that they are not
pertinent problems of production processes.
The consequences of the absence of the first feature are clear in practice: “about a third of
what we do consists of redoing work previously ‘done’”(Juran 1988).
The impact of the second conceptual failure is more subtle and concerns lost opportunities to
fulfill customer requirements. In practice, the result is that improvement efforts are directed
toward making conversions more efficient rather than making them more effective. Products
which poorly fulfill customer requirements and expectations are then produced with great
efficiency.
Note that although these problems are different than those analyzed from the JIT standpoint,
they too ultimately impact physical flows. Quality deviations cause waste in themselves, but
also through interruption of the physical flow. In a similar way, poorly defined requirements in
internal customer-supplier relationships add to conversion time and costs and thus slow down
the physical flow.
2These two items correspond to the common views on quality (Juran 1988):
- conformance to the specification or freedom from deficiencies
- product performance.
14
3.2.3 Why has the conventional model been adopted?
Why has the conversion model been used in the first place, when its drawbacks, at least in
hindsight, are so evident? A clue to a possible answer is given by Johnson and Kaplan (1987).
The conversion model was established in the 19th century, when plants and companies were
centered around just one conversion. Towards the end of the century, the trend was to form
hierarchically organized companies, controlling several conversion processes. The
organizational models and the accounting practices were developed to conform to the new
requirements. Production processes were simpler, flows shorter and organizations smaller, so
the problems due to the conceptual basis remained negligible. Only later, as the conversion
model has been applied to more complex production, have the problems surfaced clearly.
3.3 Conceptual basis of the new production philosophy

The new conceptual model is a synthesis and generalization of different models suggested in
various fields, like the JIT movement (Shingo 1984) and the quality movement (Pall 1987).
Thus the task is to develop a model covering all important features of production, especially
those that are lacking in the conversion model. The new production model can be defined as
follows:
Production is a flow of material and/or information from raw material to the end
product (Figure 2). In this flow, the material is processed (converted), it is inspected,
it is waiting or it is moving. These activities are inherently different. Processing
represents the conversion aspect of production; inspecting, moving and waiting
represent the flow aspect of production.
Flow processes can be characterized by time, cost and value. Value refers to the
fulfillment of customer requirements. In most cases, only processing activities are
value-adding activities. For material flows, processing activities are alterations of
shape or substance, assembly and disassembly.
Moving Waiting Proces- Inspec- Moving Waiting Proces- Inspec-

sing A tion sing B tion
Scrap
Figure 2. Production as a flow process: simplistic illustration. The shaded boxes represent
non value-adding activities, in contrast to value-adding processing activities.
In essence, the new conceptualization3 implies a dual view of production: it consists of

conversions and flows. The overall efficiency of production is attributable to both the
efficiency (level of technology, skill, motivation, etc.) of the conversion activities
3 Note that there are several related definitions that only partially cover the important features considered here.
For example the process definition of Pall (1987) - typical of the quality literature - does not cover the physical
flow aspect. In the value chain of Porter (1990) all activities add value.
15
performed, as well as the amount and efficiency of the flow activities through which the
conversion activities are bound together4.
While all activities expend cost and consume time, only conversion activities add value to the
material or piece of information being transformed to a product. Thus, the improvement of
flow activities should primarily be focused their reduction or elimination, whereas conversion
activities have to be made more efficient. This core idea of the new production philosophy is
illustrated in Figure 3.
But how should flow processes be designed, controlled and improved in practice? In various
subfields of the new production philosophy, the following heuristic principles have evolved:
1. Reduce the share of non value-adding activities.

2. Increase output value through systematic consideration of customer requirements.
3. Reduce variability.
4. Reduce the cycle time.
5. Simplify by minimizing the number of steps, parts and linkages.
6. Increase output flexibility.
7. Increase process transparency.
8. Focus control on the complete process.
9. Build continuous improvement into the process.
10. Balance flow improvement with conversion improvement.
11. Benchmark.
These principles are elaborated in the next section. In general, the principles apply both to the
total flow process and to its subprocesses. In addition, the principles implicitly define flow
process problems, such as complexity, intransparency or segmented control.
Note that it is rarely possible to devise the best possible process by design only; usually the
designed and implemented process provides a starting point for continuous improvement,
based on measurements of actual process behavior.
4In recent discussion on strategy, the former has been called core competence, the latter capability (Stalk & al.
1992).
16
Conventional Quality view New production
view philosophy
Total Cost of non-
cost of quality
Cost of non-
a
value-adding
process
activities
Cost of
value-adding
activities
Performance Increase Reduce cost Reduce or eliminate

improvement process of non quality non value-adding activities
rationale: efficiency and increase and increase
process efficiency efficiency of value-adding
activities
Figure 3. Performance improvement in conventional, quality and new production philosophy
approaches. Note that the customary quality view addresses only a subset of all non value-
adding activities.
3.4 Principles for flow process design and improvement

In the following, the eleven important principles for flow process design and improvement are
examined.
Note, that most “buzzword approaches” to the new production philosophy have originated
around one central principle. Even if they usually acknowledge other principles, their
approach is inherently partial. Thus, for example, the quality approach has variability
reduction as its core principle. Time based management endeavors to reduce cycle times.
Value based management aims at increasing output value.
Many principles are closely related, but not on the same abstraction level. Some are more
fundamental, while others more application oriented.
It is also important to note that the understanding of these principles is of very recent origin. It
is presumed that knowledge of these principles will rapidly grow and be systematized.
3.4.1 Reduce the share of non value-adding activities
Value-adding and non value-adding activities can be defined as follows:

Value-adding activity: Activity that converts material and/or information towards that
which is required by the customer.
Non value-adding activity (also called waste): Activity that takes time, resources or
space but does not add value.
17
Reducing the share of non value-adding activities is a fundamental guideline. Experience
shows that non value-adding activities dominate most processes; usually only 3 to 20 % of
steps add value (Ciampa 1991), and their share of the total cycle time is negligible, from 0.5 to
5 % (Stalk & Hout 1990). Why are there non value-adding activities in the first place? There
seems to be three root causes: design, ignorance and the inherent nature of production.
Non value-adding activities exist by design in hierarchical organizations. Every time a task is
divided into two subtasks executed by different specialists, non value-adding activities
increase: inspecting, moving and waiting. In this way, traditional organizational design
contributes to an expansion of non value-adding activities.
Ignorance is another source of non value-adding activities. Especially in the administrative
sphere of production, many processes have not been designed in an orderly fashion, but
instead just evolved in an ad hoc fashion to their present form. The volume of non value-
adding activities is not measured, so there is no drive to curb them.
It is in the nature of production that non value-adding activities exist: work-in-process has to
be moved from one conversion to the next, defects emerge, accidents happen.
With respect to all three causes for non value-adding activities, it is possible to eliminate or
reduce the amount of these activities. However, this principle cannot be used simplistically.
Some non value-adding activities produce value for internal customers, like planning,
accounting and accident prevention. Such activities should not be suppressed without
considering whether more non value-adding activities would result in other parts of the
process. However, accidents and defects, for example, have no value to anybody and should
be eliminated without any hesitation.
Most of the principles presented below address suppression of non value-adding activities.
However, it is possible to directly attack the most visible waste just by flowcharting the
process, then pinpointing and measuring non value-adding activities5.
3.4.2 Increase output value through systematic consideration of customer
requirements
This is another fundamental principle. Value is generated through fulfilling customer
requirements, not as an inherent merit of conversion. For each activity there are two types of
customers, the next activities and the final customer.
Because this sounds self-evident, we again have to ask why customer requirements have not
been considered.
The organizational and control principles of the conventional production philosophy have
tended to diminish the role of customer requirements. In many processes, customers have
never been identified nor their requirements clarified. The dominant control principle has been
to minimize costs in each stage; this has not allowed for optimization of cross-functional flows
in the organization.
The practical approach to this principle is to carry out a systematic flow design, where
customers are defined for each stage, and their requirements analyzed. Other principles,
5 A detailed methodology for administrative processes is presented, for example, by Harrington (1991).
18
especially enhanced transparency and continuous improvement, also contribute to this
principle.
3.4.3 Reduce variability
Production processes are variable. There are differences in any two items, even though they
are the same product, and the resources needed to produce them (time, raw material, labor)
vary.
There are two reasons for reducing process variability. First, from the customer point of view
a uniform product is better. Taguchi proposes that any deviation from a target value in the
product causes a loss, which is a quadratic function of the deviation, to the user and wider
society (Bendell & al. 1989). Thus, reduction of variability should go beyond mere
conformance to given specifications.
Secondly, variability, especially of activity duration, increases the volume of non value-adding
activities. It may easily be shown through queue theory that variability increases the cycle time
(Krupka 1992, Hopp & al. 1990). Indeed, there are no instances where more variability is
good (Hopp & al. 1990).
Thus, reduction of variability within processes must be considered an intrinsic goal (Sullivan
1984). Schonberger (1986) states strongly: “Variability is the universal enemy.” Alternative
expressions for this principle are: reduce uncertainty, increase predictability.
The practical approach to decreasing variability is made up of the well-known procedures of
statistical control theory. Essentially, they deal with measuring variability, then finding and
eliminating its root causes. Standardization of activities by implementing standard procedures
is often the means to reduce variability in both conversion and flow processes. Another
method is to install fool-proofing devices (“poka-yoke”) into the process (Shingo 1986).
3.4.4 Reduce the cycle time
Time is a natural metric for flow processes. Time is a more useful and universal metric than
cost and quality because it can be used to drive improvements in both (Krupka 1992).
A production flow can be characterized by the cycle time, which refers to the time required
for a particular piece of material to traverse the flow6. The cycle time can be represented as
follows:
Cycle time = Processing time + inspection time + wait time + move time
The basic improvement rationale in the new production philosophy is to compress the cycle
time, which forces the reduction of inspection, move and wait time. The progression of cycle
time reduction through successive process improvement is depicted in Figure 4.
In addition to the forced elimination of wastes, compression of the total cycle time gives the
following benefits (Schmenner 1988, Hopp & al. 1990):
- faster delivery to the customer
- reduced need to make forecasts about future demand
6There often are several flows which unite or diverge in the total production process. However, it is generally
possible to recognize the main flow and side flows, which have to be assessed separately.
19
- decrease of disruption of the production process due to change orders
- easier management because there are fewer customer orders to keep track of.
The principle of cycle time compression also has other interesting implications. From the
perspective of control, it is important that the cycles of deviation detection and correction are
speedy. In design and planning, there are many open-ended tasks that benefit from an iterative
search for successively better (if not optimal) solutions. The shorter the cycle time, the more
cycles are affordable.
From the point of view of improvement, the cycle time from becoming conscious of a problem
or an opportunity to the implementation of a solution is crucial. In traditional organizations,
this cycle time is sometimes infinite due to lack communication where no message is passed,
or a long channel of communication where the message gets distorted.
Every layer in an organizational hierarchy adds to the cycle time of error correction and
problem solving. This simple fact provides the new production philosophy’s motivation to
decrease organizational layers, thereby empowering the persons working directly within the
flow.
Practical approaches to cycle time reduction include the following (for example, Hopp & al.
1990, Plossl 1991, Stalk & Hout 1990)):
- eliminating work-in-progress (this original JIT goal reduces the waiting time and thus
the cycle time)
- reducing batch sizes
- changing plant layout so that moving distances are minimized
- keeping things moving; smoothing and synchronizing the flows
- reducing variability
- changing activities from sequential order to parallel order
- isolating the main value-adding sequence from support work
- in general, solving the control problems and constraints preventing a speedy flow.
WasteWaste
time time
WasteWaste
time time
WasteWaste
time time
Processing
Processing Processing
Processing
time time time time time time time time
Figure 4. Cycle time can be progressively compressed through elimination of non value-
adding activities and variability reduction (Berliner & Brimson 1988).
20
3.4.5 Simplify by minimizing the number of steps and parts
Other things being equal, the very complexity of a product or process increases the costs
beyond the sum of the costs of individual parts or steps. Conventional accounting shows the
price differential of two materials, but not the additional costs created in the whole production
system by using two instead of one (Child & al. 1991). Another fundamental problem of
complexity is reliability: complex systems are inherently less reliable than simple systems.
Also, the human ability to deal with complexity is bounded and easily exceeded.
Simplification can be understood as
- reducing of the number of components in a product
- reducing of the number of steps in a material or information flow
Simplification can be realized, on the one hand, by eliminating non value-adding activities
from the production process, and on the other hand by reconfiguring value-adding parts or
steps.
Organizational changes can also bring about simplification. Vertical and horizontal division of
labor always brings about non value-adding activities, which can be eliminated through self-
contained units (multi-skilled, autonomous teams).
Practical approaches to simplification include:
- shortening the flows by consolidating activities
- reducing the part count of products through design changes or prefabricated parts
- standardizing parts, materials, tools, etc.
- decoupling linkages
- minimizing the amount of control information needed.
3.4.6 Increase output flexibility

At first glance, increase of output flexibility seems to be contradictory to simplification.
However, many companies have succeeded in realizing both goals simultaneously (Stalk &
Hout 1990). Some of the key elements are modularized product design in connection with an
aggressive use of the other principles, especially cycle time compression and transparency.
Practical approaches to increased flexibility include (Stalk & Hout 1990, Child & al. 1991):
- minimizing lot sizes to closely match demand
- reducing the difficulty of setups and changeovers
- customizing as late in the process as possible
- training a multi-skilled workforce.
3.4.7 Increase process transparency

Lack of process transparency increases the propensity to err, reduces the visibility of errors,
and diminishes motivation for improvement. Thus, it is an objective to make the production
process transparent and observable for facilitation of control and improvement: “to make the
main flow of operations from start to finish visible and comprehensible to all employees”
(Stalk & Hout 1989). This can be achieved by making the process directly observable through
organizational or physical means, measurements, and public display of information.
21
In a theoretical sense, transparency means a separation of the network of information and the
hierarchical structure of order giving (Greif 1991), which in the classical organization theory
are identical. The goal is thus to substitute self-control for formal control and related
information gathering.
Practical approaches for enhanced transparency include the following:
- establishing basic housekeeping to eliminate clutter: the method of 5-S7
- making the process directly observable through appropriate layout and signage
- rendering invisible attributes of the process visible through measurements
- embodying process information in work areas, tools, containers, materials and
information systems
- utilizing visual controls to enable any person to immediately recognize standards and
deviations from them
- reducing the interdependence of production units (focused factories).
3.4.8 Focus control on the complete process
There are two causes of segmented flow control: the flow traverses different units in a
hierarchical organization or crosses through an organizational border. In both cases, there is a
risk of suboptimization.
There are at least two prerequisites for focusing control on complete processes. First, the
complete process has to be measured.
Secondly, there must a controlling authority for the complete process. Several alternatives are
currently used. In hierarchical organizations, process owners for cross-functional processes
are appointed, with responsibility for the efficiency and effectiveness of that process (Rummler
& Brache 1990). A more radical solution is to let self-directed teams control their processes
(Stewart 1992).
For inter-organizational flows, long term co-operation with suppliers and team building have
been introduced with the goal of deriving mutual benefits from an optimized total flow.
3.4.9 Build continuous improvement into the process
The effort to reduce waste and to increase value is an internal, incremental, and iterative
activity, that can and must be carried out continuously. There are several necessary methods
for institutionalizing continuous improvement:
- Measuring and monitoring improvement.
- Setting stretch targets (e.g. for inventory elimination or cycle time reduction), by
means of which problems are unearthed and their solutions are stimulated.
- Giving responsibility for improvement to all employees; a steady improvement from
every organizational unit should be required and rewarded.
- Using standard procedures as hypotheses of best practice, to be constantly challenged
by better ways.
- Linking improvement to control: improvement should be aimed at the current control
constraints and problems of the process. The goal is to eliminate the root of problems
rather than to cope with their effects.
7 The method of 5-S takes its name from the initials of five Japanese words referring to organization,
orderliness, cleanliness, personal cleanliness and discipline (Imai 1986). The method is used for creating a
basic workplace organization.
22
Continuous improvement is analyzed in more detail in section 3.5.
3.4.10 Balance flow improvement with conversion improvement
In the improvement of productive activities, both conversions and flows have to be addressed.
But how should these two alternatives be balanced?
For any production process, the flow and conversion aspects each have a different potential
for improvement. As a rule,
- the higher the complexity of the production process, the higher the impact of flow
improvement
- the more wastes inherent in the production process, the more profitable is flow
improvement in comparison to conversion improvement.
However, in a situation where flows have been neglected for decades, the potential for flow
improvement is usually higher than conversion improvement. On the other hand, flow
improvement can be started with smaller investments, but usually requires a longer time than a
conversion improvement.
The crucial issue is that flow improvement and conversion improvement are intimately
interconnected:
- better flows require less conversion capacity and thus less equipment investment
- more controlled flows make implementation of new conversion technology easier
- new conversion technology may provide smaller variability, and thus flow benefits.
Therefore one is tempted to agree with Ohno, who argues that “improvement adheres to a
certain order” (Ohno 1988). It is often worthwhile to aggressively pursue flow process
improvement before major investments in new conversion technology: “Perfect existing
processes to their full potential before designing new ones” (Blaxill & Hout 1991). Later,
technology investments may be aimed at flow improvement or redesign.
3.4.11 Benchmark
Unlike technology for conversions, the best flow processes are not marketed to us; we have to
find the world class processes ourselves.
Often benchmarking is a useful stimulus to achieve breakthrough improvement through radical
reconfiguration of processes. It helps to overcome the NIH-syndrome and the power of
ingrained routines. By means of it, fundamental logical flaws in the processes may be
unearthed8.
The basic steps of benchmarking include the following (Camp 1989):
- knowing the process; assessing the strengths and weaknesses of subprocesses
- knowing the industry leaders or competitors; finding, understanding and comparing the
best practices
- incorporating the best; copying, modifying or incorporating the best practices in your
own subprocesses
8 Through benchmarking, Ford Company observed that Mazda’s accounts payable department was run by 5
persons, in comparison to Ford’s over 500 employees (Hammer 1990). Ford’s accounts payable function was
then radically “re-engineered” by simplifying the procedures and by implementing “invoice-less processing”.
It was realized that the objective of the department, “payment upon invoice” was not appropriate any more,
and a new goal “paying upon delivery” was adopted.
23
- gaining superiority by combining existing strengths and the best external practices.
A detailed methodology for benchmarking is presented by Camp (1989).
3.5 Continuous improvement vs. innovation

Many of the principles discussed above are realized in the framework of continuous
improvement. Because the concept is relatively new, it is useful to analyze and compare it
with innovation, which has been the primary framework of analysis until now.
The Western view on technological advancement has seen product and process9 innovation as
the prime movers of change. Characteristic to both product and process innovation is that the
innovative features are embodied in a product or in production equipment. Most often,
innovation is stimulated by external technological development or market demand. Innovation
is often seen as a breakthrough leap, though incremental refinement is also accepted as a form
of innovation. In many disciplines, like economics and industrial engineering, the residual
technological progress that remains unexplained by innovation has been called learning.
Imai (1986) argues that this conceptual framework of innovation has prevented the
understanding of the significance of continuous improvement, characterized by incremental
steps, wide internal involvement and organization-embodied innovation (Table 2).
Table 2. Comparison of innovation and continuous improvement (modified from Imai
(1986)).
Innovation Continuous improvement
Focus Efficiency of conversions Efficiency of flow processes
Goal Leaps in efficiency Small steps, details, finetuning
Involvement Company and outside specialists, Everybody in the company
champions
Time frame Intermittent and non-incremental Continuous and incremental
Technology relied upon Outside technological Internal know-how, best practice
breakthroughs, new inventions,
new theories
Incentive New superior technology or need Overcome constraints in
for capacity extension variability reduction or cycle
time compression
Practical requirements Requires large investment, but Requires little investment, but
little effort to maintain it great effort to maintain it
Mode of action Scrap and rebuild Maintenance and improvement
Transferability Transferable: embodied in Primarily idiosyncratic:
individual equipment and related embodied in system of
operating skill equipments, skills, procedures
and organization
Effort orientation Technology People
To some extent continuous improvement parallels the traditional view on innovation: they
both incorporate incremental product and conversion process improvement. However,
continuous improvement is more geared towards development of the flow process than
9 In innovation literature, the term “process innovation” refers to conversion process innovation rather than to
flow process innovation.
24
conversions (Figure 5). On the other hand, in some cases an innovation may enhance the
efficiency of the flow process.
Major Innovation:
change Implementation
of new technology
Incremental Continuous
change improvement
Flow process Conversion

Figure 5. Continuous improvement and innovation: focus and aimed change.
The focus of continuous improvement is typically:

- eliminating bottlenecks (elaborated in the theory of constraints (Umble & Srikanth
1990))
- variability reduction
- cycle time reduction
- elimination of non value-adding steps from the flow
- ongoing consideration of customer requirements for each activity.
- finetuning different parts of the process for better synchronization
- maintenance for better reliability
- incremental development of equipment (procured from outside or self-fabricated).
In practice, innovation-oriented performance improvement is seen as an ongoing series of
decisions as to whether the probable gain from each proposed improvement activity,
independently considered, will exceed the expenditure to implement it (Hall & al. 1991). Only
clear-cut investments in new machinery capable of showing productivity gains tend to
overcome this hurdle of justification. Organizationally, performance improvement is strictly
separated from control and does not address problems of control. Thus, performance
improvement activities remain unfocused and limited in their scope.
As argued earlier, the interaction between continuous improvement and innovation has to be
acknowledged. Poor flow efficiency is a barrier to innovation, because the benefits of an
innovation become invisible in the confused environment. Implementation is difficult when
there are many intervening disturbances (Hayes & al. 1988, Chew & al. 1991). This is related
to the argument that there is a preferred sequence of improvement and innovation (Ohno
1982). Only after exhausting incremental innovation potential are major changes suggested.
25
Thus, the new production philosophy provides a vision and focus for improvement and
innovation. It stresses improvement directed at the present constraints in the production flow.
3.6. Measurements in continuous improvement
Measures are extremely important in the pursuit of lean production. Measures provide access
to continuous improvement by pinpointing improvement potential and monitoring progress
achieved.
The traditional measures that most often focus on costs, productivity or utilization rates, have
been criticized from several points of view. Their major problems include the following:
- they do not give impetus for continuous improvement
- they do not attempt to understand the sources of indirect costs and thus misdirect
attention; for example, the principle of allocating overhead cost in proportion to direct
labor focuses the cost reduction attention solely to direct labor (Johnson & Kaplan
1987)
- they lead to local optima instead of the global optimum (Umble & Srikanth 1990)
- they measure after the fact
- there is a tendency to collect too much data, especially in the framework of
computerized systems (Plossl 1991).
In lean production, measurements should support the application of the new principles. Thus,
there are a number of requirements for measurements:
- Waste reduction. The measurement system should be able to measure waste inherent
in the process.
- Adding value. The measurement system should be able to measure value added by
each step in the process.
- Variability reduction. Measurement of variability and defects is necessary.
- Cycle time. Cycle time for the main process and the various side and subprocesses has
to be measured.
- Simplification. Measures for complexity/simplicity have to be developed and applied.
- Transparency. Measurements should be close to each activity so that the people
performing each activity receive direct, immediate and relevant feedback (Harrington
1991). Invisible features of the process have to be made visible by measurements. Both
global and local measures should be provided for each activity.
- Focus on complete process. Both the process and the product should be measured.
Measurements should focus on causes rather than results, e.g. costs
(Schonberger 1990).
- Continuous improvement. The measurement system should be able to measure the
status and rate of process improvement (Hayes & al. 1988). Measures should be
capable of pinpointing the potential for improvement. Measures should foster
improvement rather than just monitor it (Maskell 1991). Trends are more important
than absolute values.
Some of the new principles are also applicable to measurement itself:
- Simplification. Measurement should not require much additional effort. There should
not be too many different measures. After all, measurement does not directly add value
to the product.
26
- Measures should be transparent and understandable. Aggregates are better than
details, physical measures better than financial, and visual feedback is more useful than
systems data (Plossl 1991).
Non financial, physical measurements that directly reflect the status of improvement activities
are emphasized (Plossl 1991, Maskell 1991). While costs are based on a number of physical
factors, it is impossible to influence these through cost control; however, it is possible the
other way around, to influence cost through manipulating physical factors.
Time as a suitable global measuring dimension is suggested by Stalk and Hout (1990) and
other authors. Related measures include
- cycle time (per major subprocess )
- inventory turnover
- value-added time as percent of total elapsed time
- decision cycle time
- lead time (from order to delivery)
- schedule performance (meeting daily schedule).
Some authors argue for the need to tailor measurements closely to the requirements of the
situation. Measurements should vary between locations even within one firm, and they should
change over time (Maskell 1991). For example, quality costs may be a good measure in initial
phases as a motivation, but for continuous, operational use it might be too laborious.
3.7 Implementation of the new philosophy

Even if there are numerous examples of successful implementation of the new philosophy,
there also are examples of failures and false starts. After all, the majority of companies has not
yet launched full scale efforts for adopting these ideas.
There are emotional and conceptual barriers for implementation. Ashton & al. (1990) argue
that many managers derive their perceived knowledge from their position in the organization
and they fear that their actual lack of knowledge would be exposed. Conceptual barriers are
related to the difficulty of abandoning the conventional assumptions concerning organizing,
controlling, etc.
Experience shows that there are four key factors that have to be balanced in implementing the
new philosophy (the framework is based on Ashton & al. (1990), Schaffer & Thomson
(1992), and Plossl (1991)):
1. Management commitment
Leadership is needed to realize a fundamental shift of philosophy, with the goal of improving
every activity in the organization. Without an active initiative from the management, change
will stop at all natural barriers. Management must understand and internalize the new
philosophy. The change will be realized only through people; it cannot be delegated to staff
specialists, like in the case of investment into new technology.
Management must create an environment which is conducive to change. As Deming (1982)
says, there must be constancy of purpose.
27
2. Focus on measurable and actionable improvement
The focus should be on actionable and measurable improvement, rather than just on
developing capabilities. Of course, defining various flow processes and focusing on their
bottlenecks to speed up and smooth out material and information flows means just that. Short
term successes then reinforce motivation for further improvement.
Originally in JIT, the overarching goal was to reduce or eliminate inventories. However,
reduction of inventories uncovered other problems, which had to be solved as a forced
response. Cycle time, space and variability have also been used as drivers, because they too
are increased by underlying problems. Especially cycle time provides an excellent, easy to
understand driver, which can be improved continually.
3. Involvement
Employee involvement happens naturally, when organizational hierarchies are dismantled, and
the new organization is formed with self-directed teams, responsible for control and
improvement of their process (Stewart 1992). But also even if the hierarchy remains intact,
involvement can be stimulated through problem solving teams.
However, Shingo (1988) and Imai (1986) stress that management and staff specialists have a
dominant role in targeting and realizing the improvement. Employee involvement is thus
necessary, but not sufficient for realizing the full potential of continuous improvement.
4. Learning
Implementation requires a substantial amount of learning. First, learning should be directed at
principles, tools and techniques of process improvement. In the next phase, the focus turns to
empirical learning from manipulating the processes. For this reason, formal reviews of
progress and experiences are useful. One form of learning consists of pilot projects for testing
new ideas on a limited scale. A third source of learning is made up by external information,
which can be tapped through benchmarking.
Lack of balance among these four factors leads usually to a dead end. For example:
- lack of management’s commitment and changed priorities will be rapidly visible and
demotivate other parties
- primary emphasis on learning and involvement, without simultaneous attack on real,
urgent problems, does not lead to bottom line results (Schaffer & Thomson 1992).
3.8 Conclusions
The traditional and the new production philosophies are summarized in Table 3.
The core of the new production philosophy is in the observation that there are two kinds of
phenomena in all production systems: conversions and flows. In the design, control and
improvement of production systems, both aspects have to be considered. Traditional
managerial principles have considered only conversions, or all activities have been treated as
though they were value-adding conversions.
Due to these traditional managerial principles, flow processes have not been controlled or
improved in an orderly fashion. This has led to complex, uncertain and confused flow
processes, expansion of non value-adding activities, and reduction of output value.
28
Eleven principles for flow process design and improvement have evolved. There is ample
evidence that through these principles, the efficiency of flow processes can be considerably
and rapidly improved.
Table 3. The traditional and new production philosophies.
The traditional production philosophy
Production activities are:

- conceived as sets of operations or functions, which are
- controlled, operation-by-operation, for least costs, and
- improved periodically with respect to productivity by implementing new
technology.
The new production philosophy

Production activities are:
- conceived as material and information flow processes, which are
- controlled for minimal variability and cycle time, and
- improved continuously with respect to waste and value, and periodically with
respect to efficiency by implementing new technology.
29
4 Construction as activity
To what degree do the problems associated with the conventional production view, as
observed in manufacturing, also exist in construction? This is the basic question we address in
this chapter. To answer it, we first analyze the traditional conceptual basis of construction,
and then discuss the problems caused by these traditional concepts. Available information on
wastes in construction is summarized, and the detrimental impact of the traditional concepts
on development efforts in construction is presented.
4.1 The traditional conceptualization of construction
Construction is a very old industry. Its culture and many of its methods have their roots in
periods before explicit scientific analysis. However, especially after the Second World War,
there have been several different initiatives to understand construction and its problems and to
develop corresponding solutions and improvement methods. We can recognize strategic
initiatives like industrialization, computer integrated construction, and total quality
management. We also see operational and tactical techniques such as project planning and
control tools, organizational methods, project success factors, and productivity improvement
methods. What conceptualizations have been used in these efforts by practicing builders and
researchers?
By far the most general concept seems to be the understanding of construction as a set of
activities aimed at a certain output, i.e. conversions. This activity view of construction is
shared both by the old traditions of construction and the newer methods.
The traditional method of cost estimation is at the heart of this activity view. The building (or
other structure) is divided into its constituent elements, and for each element, the costs of
needed materials and labor (conversion of input to output) are estimated. In later stages,
contracts which specify a part of the building as the output, and a remuneration as input, are
established. This is exactly according to the conversion model: it is assumed that the total
production process consists of a set of subprocesses which convert an input to an output, and
which can be realized and analyzed in isolation from each other1. Also in network based
project planning (CPM networks), a relative newcomer in the historical perspective of
construction, the activities needed for producing the various elements of the building are the
basic unit of analysis.
This activity view is the basis for several managerial concepts in construction that are also
seen in manufacturing. A sequential mode of project realization, hierarchical organization, and
neglect of quality issues are such concepts.
That construction has been based on the conversion model is further supported by cases
where unexpected interaction between activities is observed. The great influence of design on
construction and operating costs was first pointed out and analyzed as recently as 1976
(Paulson 1976). Friedrich et al. (1987) strongly criticize the customary notion that large
projects can be measured using yardsticks viewed as simple summations of individual
yardsticks taken discipline by discipline, system by system, or component by component.
1 Even the newest theory formation is based on this. Bennett presents in his recent book (1991) a general
theory of construction project management. His basic unit of analysis is days-work: “The whole point and
purpose of construction project management is to create conditions that enable the teams who make up project
organizations to carry out days-work efficiently.”
30
Thus, the overall effects of revisions, repairs, and rework on large projects can be very
significant, even when the individual effects of specific functions and disciplines appear small
and within “normal” acceptable practices.
Beyond this conversion model, what theories or frameworks have been used in construction?
As odd as it might seem, there are hardly any other theoretical or conceptual frameworks in
general use. As elaborated below, this conclusion is suggested by textbook content, research
content, and discussions by other construction researchers.
Even a rapid glance at the contents of textbooks on construction management shows that they
usually begin with a descriptive account of a construction project (Clough & Sears 1991,
Barrie & Paulson 1986) and then proceed to specific techniques of management and control.
No major conceptual or theoretical analysis of construction is provided at the outset.
The research into construction project success factors endeavors to find the factors that are
important for achieving outstanding project results. Because of its integrative nature, we could
justifiably anticipate that the existing conceptual frameworks and theories are synthesized in
that research. However, studies undertaken (Ashley & al. 1987, Jaselskis & Ashley 1991) are
purely empirical, with little theoretical emphasis.
This lack of construction related theories has not gone unobserved by researchers. The lack of
sufficient conceptual framework for construction project organizational design has been
discussed by Sanvido (1988). Laufer and Tucker (1987) suggest an overall re-examination of
the philosophy of project management.
This lack of a unified conceptual and theoretical framework has been persistent in spite of the
growing realization of the flaws of the activity model.
We do need to acknowledge that there have been some flow oriented approaches in
construction. Especially in heavy civil engineering practice as well as research, flows of
material and equipment have been the framework of analysis. In addition, discrete event
simulation of site activities has addressed flow characteristics (Halpin 1976, Bernold 1989).
However, these are exceptions in the otherwise activity-oriented mind set of construction.
4.2 Flow problems caused by conventional managerial concepts

Criticisms of the conventional managerial concepts may be structured into three groups:
sequential method of project realization, lack of quality considerations and segmented control.
From manufacturing, there is overwhelming evidence of the counterproductive effects of these
managerial principles. In addition to these generic managerial concepts, CPM (critical path
method) network methods are a fourth specific problem source in construction. These
managerial principles violate principles of flow process design and improvement, and
thus lead to non-optimal flows and an expansion of non value-adding activities.
The flaws of these methods have been observed to varying degrees and alternatives have been
sought. However, lacking a sound theory, these efforts have remained insufficient.
31
4.2.1 Sequential method of design and engineering
In sequential design and engineering, the total task is divided into temporally sequential tasks,
which are given to different specialists for execution. This has been the conventional method
of organizing product development in manufacturing. In construction, the traditional approach
to project execution (for example, Barrie & Paulson 1984) is similar. Here, the client first
selects an architect, who prepares overall designs and specifications. Designs for structural
and mechanical disciplines are then prepared. Construction is the responsibility of a general
contractor under contract to the client.
The problems of the traditional, sequential approach to construction have been widely
discussed in recent years. However, what has not been generally realized is that this procedure
leads to several generic flow process problems (based on Dupagne 1991):
- there are few or no iterations in the design process (long cycle times)
- constraints of subsequent phases are not taken into account in the design phase (poor
consideration of requirements of next internal customers)
- unnecessary constraints for subsequent phases are set in the design phase (poor
consideration of requirements of next internal customers)
- little feedback for specialists (poor process transparency, segmented project control)
- lack of leadership and responsibility for the total project (segmented project control).
Consequentially, the sequential procedure leads to
- suboptimal solutions
- poor constructability and operability
- large number of change orders (and thus rework in design and construction)
- lack of innovation and improvement.
4.2.2 Traditional approaches to quality
In conventional managerial approaches,
- no special effort is made to eliminate defects, errors, omissions, etc. and to reduce
their impact, or
- it is thought that a fixed optimal level of quality exists.
It is now generally accepted that without special consideration, the cost of poor quality in
average business operations is considerable. Figures in the range of 20 - 50 % are mentioned.
This has also been substantiated in construction, as discussed in Section 4.3, below. Because
processes in construction frequently have only one run, making continuous improvement is
difficult, and the impacts of quality problems are accentuated.
Processes with quality problems are characterized by
- excessive variability
- poor deviation detection (long cycle time from detection to correction)
- insufficient consideration of customer requirements.
4.2.3 Segmented control
In the conventional approach, parts of a flow process are controlled rather than the whole.
More often than not, the reason for this is the hierarchical organization.
Control in a hierarchical organization focuses on an organizational unit or a task, the costs of
which are to be minimized. This leads to maximization of utilization rates and to large batches.
This mode of control is characterized by both accumulation of work-in-process
32
between units or operations and disruptions due to material or information shortages. The
situation is further aggravated by specialization which leads to an increase in the number of
units or tasks.
A typical construction example may be found in materials management (Oglesby & al. 1989).
Responsibility for different tasks related to the preparation of a material flow is often divided
among several persons. Purchasing of materials is often handled by a special department,
which aims at minimizing the total purchase and transportation costs for each material. The
resultant material flow is therefore not likely to be optimal from the point of view of site
operations.
The disadvantages caused by this are:
- space and attention required for materials and work-in-progress (WIP), deterioration
of WIP through natural elements, loss due to misplacement, theft, etc.
- error correction is too slow
- multiple handling.
Improvements that require co-operation from several units are very difficult to make under
these circumstances.
4.2.4 Network planning

Network planning requires the division of flows into specific activities, which are then
organized into a sequence providing for the (apparently) shortest duration.
Let us consider an activity in a CPM network. An activity is usually a part of the overall work
flow of a team or it is a complete work flow in itself. It is usually fed by a material flow.
When an activity is a part of a wider work flow, it is strongly affected by the previous activity.
The work team has to move from the previous location, and if the activities are the same,
learning benefits are gained and the set-up time reduced. The cost of supervision and control
also depends on the continuity of the work flow. CPM networks do not generally model these
issues.
When an activity is a complete work flow (say, installation of an elevator), the network
method just determines the starting time, but does not plan the flow itself.
Thus, traditional network planning fails to support the planning of work flows of teams or
material flows and may lead to suboptimal flows. Neither work flows of teams nor material
flows are planned in a consistent way (Birrell 1980, 1986). Stated briefly, disruptive
disconnects in these flows are bound to result.
4.2.5 Neglect of flow control and improvement

One could say that the picture given above is too selective and negative; the flow aspects are
certainly taken into account by seasoned practitioners.
To some extent, this is true. Take work flow control as an example. Birrell (1980) reports that
in practice project planning is done by considering the spatial work flow of teams, rather than
by CPM network analysis.
However, there is an overwhelming amount of contrary evidence. Whatever flow in

construction we analyze, a tradition of neglect and mismanagement is found:
33
- Project planning: Owners start lump sum projects with absurd uncertainties (Laufer
1991). The detrimental impact of changes is not realized: “the true impact of changes
is not well understood and seldom fully recognized in terms of cost and schedule
adjustments” (Hester & al. 1991). Work hours for changes are underestimated by as
much as 40 to 50 percent.
- Construction planning: “Today, it is the unusual contractor who does formal
preplanning” (Oglesby, Parker & Howell 1989). On the contrary, construction
planning should ensure smooth information, material and work flows.
- Materials management: This is found to be generally neglected (Oglesby, Parker &
Howell 1989). “...many small- and medium sized contractors do not readily accept the
notion that their profitability can be substantially improved through better material
management” (Thomas, Sanvido, Sanders 1990). “...few materials-management
systems are presently being effectively utilized by the industry” (Bernold & Treseler
1991).
- Work flows: Successful application of methodical work improvement, based on
Taylor’s scientific work study, was first reported in 1911 (Drewin 1982). However,
the authors of a leading volume in productivity improvement state in 1989 that
“adoptions [of techniques for improving productivity have] seldom occurred (Oglesby,
Parker, Howell 1989).
This state of affairs has not emerged by chance, but rather as a result of a mind set which has
not observed and analyzed the flow aspects of construction properly.
4.2.6 Compound effects

The problems described above tend to compound, aggravate and self-perpetuate. They cause
a situation where the flow processes in construction are unnecessarily fragmented, complex,
intransparent and variable. This has consequences for the behavior and mind set of all parties
in construction. In project control, “firefighting” ongoing or looming crises consumes
management resources and attention so totally, that there is little room for planning, let alone
improvement activities : “Managers are too occupied with the complexities involved in getting
the work done to think about, much less to carry out, organized programs [for productivity
improvement]” (Oglesby & al. 1989).
In fact, the whole construction culture is characterized by this short term, action oriented
behavior: “Firefighters get the laurels” (Ballard 1989). Rewards for improvement based on
proactive and systematic action are not clear.
Developments in construction technology and market demands, like the increasing variety of
materials and components, and requirements for shorter project duration, tend further to
aggravate the inherent problems in construction processes.
4.3 Waste and value loss in construction

If the flow aspects in construction have been historically neglected, it logically follows that
current construction would demonstrate a significant amount of waste, loss of value, and non
value-adding activities. Thus, it is appropriate to check whether the existing information
supports this hypothesis.
34
As far as it is known, there has never been any systematic attempt to observe all wastes in a
construction process. However, partial studies from various countries can be used to indicate
the order of magnitude of non value-adding activities in construction. However, the figures
presented tend to be conservative, because the motivation to estimate and share them is
greatest in leading companies, which may be near the best practice. Furthermore, even an
energetic effort to observe all quality problems does not reach all of them. A wide variation
due to local conditions, project types, construction methods etc. may also be anticipated.
Quality costs are perhaps the best researched area. In numerous studies from different
countries, the cost of poor quality (non conformance), as measured on site, has turned out to
be 10 - 20 % of total project costs (Cnudde 1991). In a very detailed Swedish study on a
design-construct project, the costs of quality failures for a construction company were found
to be 6 % (Hammarlund & Josephson 1991). In an American study of several industrial
projects, deviation costs averaged 12.4 % of the total installed project cost; however, “this
value is only the tip of the iceberg” (Burati & al. 1992).
The causes of these quality problems are attributed to
- design 78 % (Burati & al. 1992), 23 % (Hammarlund & Josephson 1991) and 46 % in
a Belgian study (Cnudde 1991)
- construction 17 %, 55 % and 22 %, respectively
- material supply 20 % and 15 % (in the last two cited studies).
The loss of value (understood as exceptional maintenance) to owners during facility use has
also been studied in several countries. In Sweden and Germany these external quality costs are
estimated to be 3 % of the value of annual construction production (Hammarlund &
Josephson 1991). When the average costs for exceptional maintenance are traced back to the
time of the actual construction, the loss of value is found to be 4 % of the production cost, in
the case of Sweden. 51 % of these costs are associated with design problems, 36 % with
construction problems and 9 % with use problems. As for the other aspect of loss of value,
failure to attain the best possible performance, we have little data.
Thus, quality problems are considerable in all phases of construction. Especially, design is
often the source of quality problems: sometimes it seems that the wastes and losses caused by
design are larger than the cost of design itself. Even if there is a lack of data on the internal
waste in design, it can be inferred that a substantial share of design time is consumed by
redoing or waiting for information and instructions.
Constructability is the capability of a design to be constructed (The Construction Management
Committee 1991). Constructability of a design depends on the consideration of construction
constraints and possibilities. Projects where constructability has been specifically addressed
have reported 6 - 10 % savings of construction costs (Constructability 1986).
In a Business Roundtable study, materials management was found to be generally neglected
(referred by Oglesby & al. (1989)). It has been estimated that 10 - 12 % savings in labor costs
could be produced by materials-management systems (Bell & Stukhart 1986). Further, a
reduction of the bulk material surplus from 5 - 10 % to 1 - 3 % would result. Savings of 10 %
in materials costs are reported from vendor cooperation in streamlining the material flow
(Asplund 1991). According to a Swedish study, excess consumption of materials on site
(scrap, wastage and surplus) is on average 10 %, varying in the range of 5 - 30 % for different
materials (Bättre materialhandling på bygget 1990).
35
As for work flow processes, the average share of working time used in value-adding activities
is estimated to be 36 % (Oglesby & al. 1989) or 31.9 % (Levy 1990) in the United States.
There are similar figures from other countries (for example, National Contractors Group
1990).
Another waste factor is lack of safety. In the United States, safety-related costs are estimated
to be 6 percent of total project costs (Levitt & Samelson 1988).
Thus, there is strong empirical evidence showing that a considerable amount of waste and loss
of value exists in construction2. A large part of this waste has been hidden, and it has not been
perceived as actionable.
4.4 Detrimental impact on development efforts
The many problems of construction have led to various development efforts. However,
deficient conceptualization may lead to suboptimal or counterproductive conclusions and
actions. Industrialization and computer integrated construction are examples of efforts that
initially have been based on the traditional conceptualization, but the neglect of flow processes
seems to have become a barrier for progress.
4.4.1 Industrialization
The traditional goals of industrialization of construction (Warszawski 1990) match well with
the goals of process improvement: industrialized construction simplifies site processes and
provides benefits of repetition. However, the total process of construction tends to become
more complex and vulnerable due to using two production locations (factory and site) and
increased co-ordination needs.
In industrialization, process improvement has not been taken as a goal in itself. This has been
detrimental because industrialized construction requires considerably better controlled
processes than on-site construction. For example, requirements for dimensional accuracy as
well as co-operation within the design and planning processes are more important in
industrialized construction.
Thus, it seems to be a plausible hypothesis that poorly controlled design, prefabrication, and
site processes have often consumed the theoretical benefits to be gained from industrialization.
4.4.2 Computer integrated construction
In recent years, computer integration has become a major development target in construction.
The basic idea in the pursuit of computer integrated construction (CIC) is to facilitate
communication of data, knowledge and design solutions between project participants. Related
development efforts have focused primarily on technical issues: the data structure of the
constructed product and, to a lesser extent, of the production process.
2Of course, this is not surprising in view of the widely held opinions on construction. Schonberger (1990)
comments that construction does not fit the usual categories of industries:
“One industry, construction, is so fouled up as to be in a class by itself. Delay, lack of coordination,
and mishaps (especially return trips from the site to get something forgotten) are normal, everyday
events for the average company.”
36
The original basis of CIC is activity-oriented. After observing a task poorly carried out,
namely data communication, it is suggested that this task be computerized3. However, here
we again confront the myopic view of improving tasks or activities in isolation from the flow.
In fact, there is increasing empiric evidence that flow process problems, like excessive
fragmentation and segmentation, effectively hamper the implementation of integration
technology (Liker & al. 1992, Anon. 1991). Thus, a neglect of process improvement is a
barrier to technical integration4.
4.5 Conclusions
The situation in construction may be characterized as follows:
- the conceptual basis of construction engineering and management is conversion
oriented (though the term activity is most commonly used)
- the managerial methods deteriorate flows by violating principles of flow process
design and improvement
- as a consequence, there is considerable waste in construction
- waste is invisible in total terms, and it is considered to be inactionable
- improvement efforts have been hampered by their neglect of flow aspects.
However, this is the very situation faced by manufacturing. The following characterization by
Plossl (1991) could as well describe construction:
“The consensus of practically all people in manufacturing, until very recently, was that
the problems experienced daily were inevitable and that it was necessary to learn to
live with them. The real heroes were those individuals who could solve problems
shortly after they arose, regardless of how they solved them.”
Thus, following the lead of manufacturing, the next task is to reconceptualize construction as
flows. The starting point for improving construction is to change the way of thinking, rather
than seeking isolated solutions to the various problems at hand.
3 For more detailed treatment, see Dupagne (1991).

4 Recently, these issues have been increasingly addressed in the framework of organizational integration.
37
5 Construction as flow
Construction should be viewed as composed of flow processes. In the following, a view of the
construction project based on flows and their associated wastes and values is given.
Measuring flows in construction is then commented upon.
The most acute flow problems of construction are caused either by traditional design,
production and organization concepts, or the peculiarities of construction. Thus, these issues
necessitate special consideration. After examining solutions to the problems caused by the
traditional managerial principles, the impact of construction peculiarities on process control
and improvement is analyzed.
Taking flows as the unit of analysis in construction leads to deep changes of concepts and
emphasis. This initial interpretation will only scratch the surface.
5.1 Flow processes in construction

There are two main processes in a construction project:
- Design process: is a stagewise refinement of specifications1 where vague needs and
wishes are transformed into requirements, then via a varying number of steps, to
detailed designs. Simultaneously, this is a process of problem detection and solving. It
can be further divided into individual subprocesses and supporting processes.
- Construction process: is composed of two different types of flows:
- Material process consisting of the flows of material to the site, including
processing and assembling on site.
- Work processes of construction teams. The temporal and spatial flows of
construction teams on site are often closely associated with the material
processes.
Other processes, which control or support the main processes, include:
- Project management process by the owner.
- Design management process by the engineering or design project manager.
- Construction management process, where the detailed design is transformed into a
construction/fabrication plan and into day-to-day coordination and control of
processes on site or in a factory.
The processes may be characterized by their cost, duration and the value for the customer.
The value consists of two components: product performance and freedom from defects
(conformance to specification). Value has to be evaluated from the perspective of the next
customer and the final customer. Cost and duration depend on the efficiency of value-adding
activities and the amount of non value-adding activities.
Let us consider, in a simplified manner, design and construction from the point of view of
value and cost. Time (duration) could be analyzed in a similar manner to cost. Let us assume
that efficiency of value-adding activities is the same in organizations considered2.
1 For more detailed discussion, see (Juran 1988, Webster 1991).

2 This is not a too rigorous assumption; especially in site construction, where equipment renting is
common, all competitors have access to the same assortment of technology.
38
The cost of design is made up of costs of value-adding activities and waste. The waste in the
design process is formed by
- rework (due to design errors detected during design)
- non value-adding activities in information and work flows
The design process has two customers: the construction process and the client. The value for
the client is determined by
- how well the implicit and explicit requirements have been converted into a design
solution
- the level of optimization achieved
- the impact of design errors that are discovered during start-up and use.
The value of the design for the construction process is determined by

- the degree to which requirements and constraints of the construction process have
been taken into account
- the impact of design errors that are detected during construction
The inherent waste in construction is created by

- rework due to design or construction errors
- non value-adding activities in the material and work flows, such as waiting, moving,
inspecting, duplicated activities, and accidents
The construction process has as its customer the client. The value of the construction to the
client is determined by
- the degree of freedom of defects discovered during start-up and use.
The primary focus in design is thus on minimizing value loss, whereas in construction it is on
minimizing waste. It has to be stressed that both wastes and value losses are real and
considerable, as described above.
Due to the one-of-a-kind project character of construction, it is necessary to have two time
frames for analysis: a project time frame and a longer time frame. From the viewpoint of a
particular one-of-a-kind project, the goal is to attain the level of cost and value of the best
existing practice (Figure 6). For the project, flows from different companies are combined,
often only for one run. Consequently it is important to assure the process capability of
companies to be selected for the project.
From the longer term point of view, the organizations in construction have to improve the
processes continuously in order to meet and beat the best practice. However, even the best
practice has an ample reserve of improvement potential, and the efficiency of the best practice
is - or at least should be - continuously moving (Figure 7).
The above discussion, with its emphasis on process improvement, down plays the potential of
innovation to improve conversion processes. However, innovation is often closely related to
process improvement: new equipment may ensure less variability, new material may make a
simplified process possible.
39
Value loss
due to design
Value loss due to
Total Extra cost due construction
costs to design
Total
value
Extra cost due
to construction
Best
practice
Extra cost
Total costs
due to design
costs inefficiencies
Best
practice
costs
Design Construction Value of the

costs costs constructed facility
Figure 6. The decision situation from the point of view of the client. Note that design and
construction duration can be analyzed similarly to costs.
Theoretical
best value
Value
loss
Best practice
value
Total
costs
Non value
adding costs
Non value
Total adding costs Value adding
costs costs
Value adding
costs
Design Construction Value of the

costs costs constructed facility
Figure 7. The process improvement potential for the best practice organizations. Again, time
should be analyzed in a parallel fashion to costs.
Compare this analysis with the conventional discussion on the diminishing degree of influence
of decisions on project cost during the progress of the project (for example, Barrie & Paulson
1984). It is acknowledged in this analysis that
- time and value, in addition to costs, are influenced by decisions in the project,
40
- influencing costs, time and value within the project is equivalent to manipulating flow
characteristics,
- cost, time and value are also dependent on the long term efforts of participating
organizations for continuous improvement.
5.2 Measures for construction
It is evident that the conventional measures of construction, which most often focus on cost or
productivity, fail to make waste visible and to stimulate continuous improvement, as argued in
Section 3.6. New measures are needed. Clearly, this theme is an open invitation to research
and development3.
Three of the visited companies were in the process of developing or already using new measures and
measurements systems in connection to continuous improvement efforts4.
The following discussion is confined to illustrating new measures and to commenting on
difficulties in establishing suitable measures for comparisons and benchmarking.
Measurement data are needed for two purposes: for driving internal improvement in the
organization, and for targeting and comparison across projects and organizations. For
organizations permanently participating in construction, both sets of measures are important.
For a one-time owner, the latter type of performance data is of interest.
In the following, construction related measures are illustrated, based on the requirements
presented in section 3.6:
- Waste: Such issues as number of defects, rework, number of design errors and
omissions, number of change orders, safety costs, excess consumption of materials and
the percentage of non value-adding time of the total cycle time for a particular work or
material flow may be addressed.
- Value: The value of the output to the internal or external customer often has to be
evaluated subjectively. For example, an aggregate measure for quality of industrial
plants, based on subjective views, has been developed in a current study at CIFE
(Fergusson & Teicholz 1992).
- Cycle time: The cycle times of main processes and subprocesses are powerful
measures5.
- Variability: Any deviations from the target can be addressed, like in schedule
performance (percent of activities executed as planned).
There are three special problems encountered in developing measures for construction:
- Uniqueness of projects, related lack of repetition, and environmental uncertainty,
which— at first sight— might make it difficult to compare between projects or
organizations.
- Difficulty of data collection on site.
- Varying definitions and procedures for data collection.
When measurements are used internally, these problems can be overcome. Most organizations
carry out roughly comparable projects, and data collection methods can be standardized inside
the organizations. Also, it might be possible to measure uniqueness,
3 Construction Industry Institute’s Quality Performance Task Force is currently in the process of analyzing
and evaluating measures used in design and construction.
4 This format is used to present anecdotal evidence from the companies visited by the author.
5 For discussion on time based competition in construction, see (Puyana-Camargo 1992).
41
complexity and uncertainty and to link efficiency and effectiveness targets to the degree of
difficulty met.
As for measurement data used for comparison and targeting, the problems stated above are
more severe. However, they may be solved by focusing on rates of improvement rather than
on absolute values. This has other benefits as well:
- Differences in definition and data collection are to a great extent filtered away.
- Differences in project complexity, uncertainty, etc. between various companies are
heavily reflected in the absolute values; however, it is reasonable that a logarithmic
measure, like halving time, is comparable.
- Overall rate of improvement is the single most important measure in the long term.
- Halving time or percent change per year are simple and easy to understand.
As observed in benchmarking practice, information on rates of improvement, to be
operational, should be accompanied by information about means for triggering that
improvement .
In spite of all difficulties in finding commensurate data, an important measure for comparison
and targeting is surely the world class level, that is, the absolute value of achievement of the
best companies in the world. However, for targeting, it is useful to know the time it will take
to reach this level, which is reflected in the rate of improvement, discussed above.
The industry average (or median) level of a performance measure is interesting, but potentially
counterproductive. It tends to produce complacency in those companies better than average.
For those companies worse than average, the target implicitly pinpointed by this benchmark is
the average.
5.3 Overcoming flow problems caused by conventional managerial
concepts
As stated in the previous chapter, the traditional managerial concepts have not only ignored
but actively deteriorated flows of construction. Thus, it is of prime importance to introduce
alternative methods conducive to flow improvement. Such methods have already been
developed to varying degrees. Not unexpectedly, they try to implement those flow design and
improvement principles which are violated by the managerial method in question.
It should be noted that the introduction of these alternative methods is only the start of
process improvement. Other improvement actions will build on that foundation.
5.3.1 Alternatives to sequential mode of project realization
In manufacturing, the problems caused by the sequential method of product development have
been addressed by the notion of concurrent engineering. To some extent, corresponding
solutions have been developed and introduced in construction.
In general, the solutions have aimed at reduced cycle time, better consideration of the next
stages, and complete processes as the focus of control. These are exactly the principles that
are violated in the sequential method.
The term concurrent (or simultaneous) engineering (Barkan 1991) has been coined to refer to
an improved design process, characterized by a rigorous upfront requirements analysis,
incorporating the constraints of subsequent phases into the conceptual phase, and
42
tightening change control towards the end of the design process. In comparison to the
traditional sequential design process, iteration cycles are transferred to the earlier phases
through cross-functional teamwork. Also overlapping of phases is used; however, intense
information exchange is required. Compression of the design time, increase of the number of
iterations and reduction of the number of change orders are three major objectives of
concurrent engineering.
In construction, various partial solutions have been implemented for remedying the evident
problems of the traditional approach. Most solutions concern organizational rethinking. For
example, in design-build contracts, the contractor gains more influence in design solutions. In
solutions involving construction management, an additional party is recruited for taking care
of the flows.
Performance specification refers to a structured design procedure, where the requirements are
made explicit, so that firms can offer their own technical solutions corresponding to the
required performances (Louwe & van Eck 1992). The technical part of the design is thus
transferred to parties which earlier were responsible only for execution. In conventional
building design practice, functional performances often are not handled very explicitly, but
rather iteratively during the stagewise development of the design solution and by soliciting
client reactions to it. Performance specification endeavors to advance both the optimality of a
particular project and the rate of innovation in general by involved parties. Concurrent
engineering is facilitated by this structured approach.
Another area having been developed as a reaction to the traditional approach is
systematization of constructability knowledge (The Construction Management Committee
1991).
5.3.2 Improving quality
At the risk of oversimplification, there are three recommendations presented in the extensive
body of quality literature to the quality problem:
- design and improve processes to have low variability
- establish means for rapid detection and correction of any defect or deviation
- improve the mechanism by which specifications are defined for each conversion
activity.
These correspond to the flow design and improvement principles concerning variability, cycle
time and customer requirements. Various quality goals reflecting these recommendations have
been increasingly accepted and implemented in construction during the last five years. Because
this area is rather well understood, it is not discussed in more detail.
5.3.3 Non-segmented control
The basic solution is, of course, to focus control on complete flow processes. Usually this
means that flows are the basis for organization, rather than specialties or functions as in the
hierarchical organization. For example, a component manufacturer should be responsible for
the whole material chain, including the installation on site. This will facilitate the application of
other solutions developed in the JIT-approach to material flows, like smaller batch size and
continuous flow, which contribute to cycle time reduction.
However, solutions which overcome the problems of segmented control in construction are
still scarce and tentative. Experimentation, development and research are needed.
43
5.3.4 From network planning to flow planning
In both work planning and materials management, the emphasis should change to complete
flow processes rather than discrete activities. Birrell (1980) has described a heuristic method
for flow oriented work planning. Recently, there have been attempts to integrate flow
planning with network methods (Huang, Ibbs & Yamazaki 1992, Osawa 1990).
This field will provide fruitful opportunities for research and development, especially with
respect to computerized tools to accomplish flow planning.
5.4 Overcoming flow problems caused by the peculiarities of construction

5.4.1 Construction peculiarities
Because of its peculiarities, the construction industry is often seen in a class of its own,
different from manufacturing. These peculiarities are often presented as reasons - or excuses -
when well-established and useful procedures from manufacturing are not implemented in
construction.
Construction peculiarities refer especially to following features (Tatum & Nam 1988,
Warszawski 1990):
- One-of-a-kind nature of projects
- Site production
- Temporary multiorganization
- Regulatory intervention
Other construction attributes, such as durability and costliness, are not considered relevant in
this context. Also construction may be characterized as complex and uncertain. These two
features, which are shared by many other industries, are treated as resultant process features
rather than as primary peculiarities.
Indeed, these peculiarities may prevent the attainment of flows as efficient as those in
stationary manufacturing. However, the general principles for flow design and improvement
apply for construction flows in spite of these peculiarities: construction flows can be
improved. But certainly it is a core issue to understand these peculiarities and to be able to
avoid or alleviate their detrimental effects.
In the following, the process control and improvement problems caused by the peculiarities
are analyzed. Solutions, both well-known and those suggested by the new production
philosophy, are presented.
5.4.2 One of a kind product

Characterization
The one-of-a-kind nature of each building or facility is caused by differing needs and priorities
of the client, by differing sites and surroundings, and by differing views of designers on the
best design solutions (Warszawski 1990). This one-of-a-kind nature, which varies along a
continuum, covers most often the overall form of the building or facility. The materials,
components and skills needed are usually the same or similar. From the point of view of
contractors and design offices, there is continuity and repetition:
44
roughly similar projects and tasks recur6. Thus, it has to be stressed that the problems
associated with one-of-kindness affect only certain processes in any project.
Usually there is significant input into the design process by the client, who is often a one-time
participant in the process and thus does not have the benefit of learning from prior project
cycles.
Problems of process control and improvement
There are several major problems of process control and improvement related to one-of-a-
kind production.
No complete feedback cycles are possible because the product is costly: what would be a
prototype to be debugged and developed further in manufacturing, is the end product in
construction.
The input by a lay client tends to be incoherent and unorganized, often activated by exposure
to detailed design solutions. Such corrections of omissions in later phases of the project
disrupts the otherwise smooth flow of activities.
The general problem in the production of one-of-a-kind buildings is that the configuration of
the flows has to be specifically designed. There are activities in the flow that are difficult to
control because of novelty. In one-of-a-kind tasks, figuring out the respective goals and
constraints is error-prone and time-consuming; the benefits of learning and continuous
improvement are not at hand. Also, the coordination of the project is hampered by duration
uncertainty and unknown characteristics of one-of-a-kind activities.
From the point of view of process improvement, measuring is a concern: one-of-a-kind
projects are not viewed as comparable, and incremental progress from project to project has
been difficult to perceive.
To sum up, the following principles for flow design and improvement are difficult to realize:
reduction of variability, continuous improvement, enhancement of transparency, compression
of (learning) cycle time. The solutions presented below attempt to implement these principles.
Solutions
The first, and most basic approach to the one-of-a-kind nature of construction is to eliminate
those unique solutions in a project not absolutely necessary due to client or site idiosyncrasies
or artistic expression of the designer. In this way, proven standard work flows and associated
components, skills, etc. can be used. Closed or open industrialized building systems provide
solutions to be considered (Warszawski 1990). Recently, construction companies have begun
to offer concept buildings (office buildings, schools, day nurseries, etc.), which are pre-
engineered solutions that can be adapted to different needs.
The lack of repetition and thus feedback cycles can be remedied by creating artificial feedback
cycles (Chew 1991 & al. 1991): simulation in its various forms, physical models,
6 It is often argued that construction projects are unique, and especially different from manufacturing in this
aspect. However, claims of uniqueness of particular plants abound in manufacturing as well (Plossl 1991,
Chew & al. 1990). It seems that there is a psychological urge to see one’s own system as unique.
45
or learning from corresponding earlier projects. Accomplishing novel tasks on site can be
facilitated by planning and training with mock-up models. Interestingly, it is a practice in
Japan to publish solutions used in unique projects in scholarly journals.
The management of the client requirement formulation process is another need. Systematic
investigation of requirements and client involvement in conceptual design produce upfront a
requirements list, which facilitates progress in subsequent phases.
With regard to site activities, the problems of one-of-a-kind tasks can be remedied with high
quality documents and clear instructions. Costly activities of sufficient duration warrant
careful methods study and improvement. Continuous planning7 will prevent non value-added
time from inflating on site.
In general, the problems of one-of-a-kind nature are compounded by the two next problems:
production on site and and temporary organization8.
5.4.3 Site production

Characterization
Construction production is typically carried out at the final site of the constructed product,
often inside the evolving product
There are four major process control and improvement problems with respect to site
production:
- Variability problems: There is usually little protection against elements or intrusion,
rendering operations prone to interruptions. Permanent safety fixtures cannot be used
in the evolving environment. Local material and labor input often has to be used,
potentially adding to uncertainty. Other areas of uncertainty include site geology and
additional environmental factors.
- Complexity problems: The spatial flow of work stations (teams) has to be coordinated
(in contrast to a factory, where only material flow through work stations is planned).
- Transparency problem: The working environment is continuously evolving, making
layout planning laborious. Due to the evolving environment, visual controls are
difficult to implement.
- Benchmarking problem: Site production is by nature decentralized production, with
associated problems of transferring improvement9.
Solutions
The most basic solution to alleviate the site problems is to configure the material flows so that
a minimum number of activities are carried out on site. The rationale of prefabrication,
modularization and preassembly is partly based on this principle. Likewise, in more site
7 The observations of Laufer (1991) on coping with uncertainty in planning are relevant here.
8 The methods and concepts of schedule compression (Construction Industry Institute 1988) address all these
problems.
9 In manufacturing, there are also great difficulties in transfering improvement from plant to plant within one
company (Chew & al. 1990). The performance differences may as great as 2:1 (after controlling for other
differences in age, technology, etc.) between the best and the worst plant.
46
oriented construction some activities such as inspection, storage, sorting etc., can be pushed
upstream in the material flow.
The next solution is to arrange necessary protection by means of temporary enclosures, if
feasible and cost-effective.
Site production sets high demands on planning because of its uncertainty, changing work
environment and numerous coordination needs. Planning of material and work flows is time
consuming, and in practice it is poorly executed. Research shows that more meticulous
planning, than currently is usual, is beneficial10. The difficulty of spatially coordinating the
work flow can be alleviated by establishing multi-skilled work groups, which coordinate
through mutual adjustment.
In practice, site operations are rather poorly systematized; only a handful of companies have
standard methods for various site operations (Oglesby & al. 1988). However, only through
standard methods can the variability be decreased and the rapid diffusion of improvements be
ensured.
The general JIT-technique of smaller batches may also be beneficial for reducing variability
and inducing improvement on site. Indeed, there are several work planning methods in Japan
which aim at this (Takada 1991). Typically, each floor is divided into multiple zones, and
repeated cycle operations are allotted to various teams.
5.4.4 Temporary multiorganization
Characterization
A construction project organization is usually a temporary organization designed and
assembled for the purpose of the particular project. It is made up by different companies and
practices, which have not necessarily worked together before, and which are tied to the
project by means of varying contractual arrangements. This is a multiorganization. Its
temporary nature extends to the work force, which may be employed for a particular project,
rather than permanently.
However, these characteristics are often not caused by objective conditions, but rather are a
result of managerial policy aimed at sequential execution and shopping out the various parts of
the building at apparently lowest cost.
The problems for process control and improvement are related to the principles concerning
continuous improvement, variability and complete processes as the focus of control. In
practice there are problems of:
- communicating data, knowledge and design solutions across organizational borders
- stimulating and accumulating improvement in processes which cross organizational
borders
- achieving goal congruity across the project organization
- stimulating and accumulating improvement inside an organization with a transient
workforce.
10 See (Laufer & Tucker 1987, 1988) and (Shohat & Laufer 1991).
47
Solutions
The basic problem of communicating data, knowledge and design solutions over
organizational borders can be addressed by
- procuring from a network of organizations with long term cooperation
- team building during the project
- clear definition (general or project wise) of roles of each participant and mutual
interfaces (essentially a Project Quality Plan)
- decoupling of work packages (as in the French sequential procedure, to be explained
in section 6.1.4).
Improvement across the conventional organizational borders can be stimulated by long term
relationships or partnerships between
- contractor and subcontractor
- owner and engineering firm
- engineering firm and vendor.
Goal congruence may be enhanced with facility procurement solutions, like the construct and
operate procurement method, becoming common for new electrical power generation plants
in the U.S.
5.4.5 Intervention of regulatory authorities
Characterization
The design solution and many work phases in a construction project are subject to checking
and approval by regulatory authorities.
Authority intervention causes uncertainty and constraints to the process. Getting an approval
for a design solution is often unpredictable. Checking by authorities during the construction
process can cause delays. Codes may be barriers for innovation, if they rigidly require a
procedure, rather than a performance.
These principles of (regulatory) cycle time, variability and continuous improvement need to be
applied to these problems.
Solutions
Inspection activities should be included as part of the flow process of production, subject to
improvement by application of the eleven principles. The approval process can usually be
simplified and speeded (as realized for example, in Norway). Authority checking during
execution can be substituted with self-checking by the executing firm, provided it has a
necessary quality control system. The building codes can be converted to be performance
based (as has already happened in the Netherlands) (Louwe & van Eck 1991).
5.4.6 Discussion
The problems associated with the peculiarities of construction are well-known in practice, and
various countermeasures have been developed and implemented, as presented above and
summarized in Table 4. These peculiarities tend to hamper control and improvement by
violating principles of flow design and improvement, and increasing the share of non value-
adding activities. However, by implementing structural solutions these peculiarities
48
can be avoided or at least minimized. Various operational solutions alleviate control problems
and improvement problems respectively.
In any case, the general principles for flow design, control and improvement apply.
Construction peculiarities cannot serve as an excuse for neglect of process improvement.
These solutions will be refined and novel solutions will surely emerge through practical
improvement efforts.
Table 4. Overview on problems related to construction peculiarities and corresponding

solutions. Process control refers to the management of a project, process improvement to the
development efforts of the permanent organizations in construction (designing,
manufacturing of materials and components, contracting).
Peculiarity Process Process Structural Operational Operational

control improvement solutions solutions for solutions for
problems problems control improvement
One-of-a-kind No prototype One-of-a-kind Minimize the Upfront Enhance
cycles processes do one-of-a-kind requirements flexibility of
Unsystematic not repeat, thus content in the analysis products and
client input long term project Set up artificial services to
Coordination of improvement cycles cover a wider
uncertain questionable Buffer variety of needs
activities uncertain tasks Accumulate
feedback
information
from earlier
projects
Site production External Difficulty of Minimize the Use enclosures Enhance
uncertainties: transferring activities on etc. for planning and
weather etc. improvement site in any eliminating risk analysis
Internal across sites material flow external capability
uncertainties solely in uncertainty
and procedures and Detailed and Systematized
complexities: skills continuous work
flow inter- planning procedures
dependencies, Multi-skilled
changing work teams
layout,
variability of
productivity of
manual work
Temporary Internal Difficulty of Minimize Team building Integrate flows
organization uncertainties: stimulating and temporary during the through
exchange of accumulating organizational project partnerships
information improvement interfaces
across across (interdependen
organization organization -cies)
borders (flow borders
disconnects)
Regulatory External Compression of
intervention uncertainty: approval cycle
approval delay Self-inspection
49
5.5 Conclusions
The view of a construction project based on flow processes leads to theoretical understanding
and to practical guidelines for improvement.
Theoretically, the causes for the chronic problems in construction are clarified by pinpointing
the generic process problems from which they originate. The problems of construction fall
into two different clusters of causes. The first is the application of traditional design,
production and organization concepts, which in the course of time have become inefficient.
Secondly, construction has peculiarities which have not been adequately handled. These issues
necessitate special consideration in regard to avoiding or alleviating their detrimental impact
on process control and improvement.
With respect to practical application, this approach provides for evaluation of existing flows
(by means of measures like those presented above), identification of improvement potential,
and guidance of operational improvement action. Thus, persistent problems may be identified
and cured and processes generally improved in a long term effort by committed companies in
the construction sector. These issues will be discussed in more depth in the following chapter.
50
6 Implementation of the new production philosophy in
construction
6.1 Present status of implementation: experiences and barriers
6.1.1 Initial implementation limited by barriers
In the construction industry, interest in the new production philosophy has grown rather
slowly. Three major thrusts of implementation can be discerned1:
- The new approach, in its JIT-oriented form, has been used in manufacturing oriented
parts of the construction industry, like in the production of windows, elevators and
prefabricated housing.
- In mainstream construction, quality-based efforts have been launched by a growing
number of organizations; this includes TQM but also such developments as partnering,
team building, continuous improvement and constructability.
- In several countries, there are initiatives to change the project organization and
procurement methods so that obstacles for process improvement will be eliminated.
All in all, however, the overall adoption of the new philosophy in construction is rather limited
in scope and methods. What are the reasons for this reluctance?
The following barriers to the implementation of these ideas in construction can be observed:
- Cases and concepts presented to illustrate the new approach (for example batch size
reduction, work-in-progress reduction, set-up time reduction, layout simplification)
are usually from the realm of mechanical fabrication and assembly, so are often not
easy to internalize and generalize from the point of view of other industries, as pointed
out by Baudin (1990). It has not been clear whether the new approach is at all feasible
in an activity so different from manufacturing.
- The idiosyncrasies of construction, like unique, one-of-a-kind products, site
production, temporary project organizations and regulatory intervention necessitate an
industry-specific interpretation of the general principles of the new production
philosophy, which currently exist only in outline.
- International competition, which in car manufacturing is a major influencing factor, is
relatively sparse in domestic construction of major industrialized countries.
- Lagging response by academic institutions: the new philosophy is not acknowledged in
educational curricula or research programs. The nature of the new production
philosophy as an engineering based, rather than as a science based endeavor is
certainly a major cause for this.
However, all of these barriers are temporary; they may retard and frustrate the diffusion but
not thwart it.
1 One could argue that the Japanese construction industry is a fourth area, where many of the ideas of the new
production philosophy have already been incrementally introduced. Bennett (1991) writes: “The Japanese
building industry delivers reliable quality, on time, with a certainty not matched anywhere else in the world.
This performance is the result of decades of steady development based on the principles of mass production:
simplify, standardize and systematize.” Unfortunately, current Japanese practice could not be examined in this
study in detail.
51
6.1.2 Construction subprocesses of manufacturing character
Currently some construction subproducts are produced in processes that possess a
manufacturing character. The assembly of such components with the building frame usually
represents a minor share of the total costs. Windows, doors, elevators, prefabricated concrete
components, and prefabricated houses, are examples of this kind of manufactured product.
(However, ceramic tiles or bricks, for example, even if produced in factories, are not in this
group because a considerable part of the cost of the end product accrues on site.)
There are several notable examples of successful implementation of the new production
philosophy to this kind of process. Schonberger (1990) reports on a Japanese factory
producing prefabricated houses with a customer lead time of forty days (from order to
completion on site), and production time (first to last operation) of one day. A Finnish
window manufacturer provides delivery and installation of windows on site with a 15 minute
accuracy (Koskela 1991). An American industrial door manufacturer has gained a
considerable competitive benefit from JIT production and short cycle times (Stalk & Hout
1990).
In regard to quality management, clear progress has been made in many countries. Many
supplying firms have acquired quality certification according to the ISO standard.
The application of the new production philosophy is least problematic in this part of the
construction industry: the methods and techniques developed in manufacturing can be applied
directly. However, except for quality management techniques, only a minor fraction of the
factories and plants delivering to construction sites have begun to implement the new
philosophy. It may be anticipated that this transformation will proceed rapidly after having
gained initial momentum. Thus, industrialized construction might gain competitive benefits
sooner than site construction.
6.1.3 Mainstream construction
Only the quality oriented approaches have been applied to any considerable extent in the
mainstream construction world. The quality issues have received increasing attention since the
beginning of the 1980’s, and construction specific interpretations of the general quality
methodologies have been published (for example, Shimizu 1979 and 1984, Cornick 1991,
Burati 1992, Leach 1991). On the basis of the practical experiences of pioneering companies2,
the methods may be further refined.
Three of the visited companies had recently launched formal TQM programs. The thrusts in those
programs are:
- definition and standardization of work processes (especially cross-functional) and
appointment of process owners, responsible for maintenance and improvement of the
respective process
- establishment of teams for finding solutions to selected bottleneck problems
- development of a measurement system to support and monitor process improvement.
One company had explicitly adopted the goal of cycle time reduction, beyond the customary TQM
emphasis on customer value and variability reduction.
While quality management has provided considerable direct benefits, it has also served as a
starting point for process improvement. However, continued progress and widening of
2 See the forthcoming CII report “Implementation Process for Improved Quality”.
52
themes considered seems to be somewhat problematic. The basic problem is that quality
management basically addresses only a partial (although important) set of wastes, namely
defects and failures to consider customer requirements. The often somewhat rigid and
dogmatic methodologies do not easily allow for a wider perspective. Another problem seems
to be that quality management has often been introduced as a second management track,
separate from the real management process. Sometimes the implementation of quality
management is more related to marketing and image, say ISO certification or winning a
national quality award, than to an urge for internal improvement.
Other process improvement principles are being used incidentally3. A French construction
company has carried out a simplification campaign for streamlining administrative procedures.
A British construction company has taken as its goal to be on-time, that is to reduce time
variability in its processes. In a Swedish company, the reduction of cycle time for construction
projects is being adopted as a goal.
However, the common problem of the majority of these efforts is that only a few process
design and improvement principles are used. Thus, while quality management remains a useful
and proven entry point to process improvement, there is a need to proceed to the application
of all available principles of process design and improvement.
6.1.4 Industry wide initiatives
The traditional way of organizing construction has been found in many countries to hamper
performance improvement and innovation. The idea of changing the organization in order to
eliminate these obstacles has been the motivation of three initiatives aimed at industry wide
changes in European countries:
- the sequential procedure in France
- the open building method in the Netherlands
- the new construction mode in Finland.
These methods have been developed primarily to advance innovation in construction, and they
have not been based directly the new production philosophy. However, they have several
implications regarding the new production philosophy. In the following, they are analyzed in
more detail from that point of view.
The sequential procedure
The main idea of the sequential procedure4 is to plan the site work as successive realizations
of autonomous sequences. A sequence is defined in terms of regrouping of tasks by functions
of the building, not in terms of traditional techniques or crafts. During a sequence a firm can
operate without interferences because it is the only organization on site. After each sequence,
there is a quality inspection and turn over of the works. The due dates of sequences are
strictly controlled.
The sequential procedure follows closely, even if implicitly, the ideas of the new production
philosophy. In the following, an interpretation of the methods and purposes of the sequential
procedure, as presented in (Gilbert 1991, Lenne 1990, Cazabat & al. 1988, Bobroff &
Campagnac 1987), is made from the point of view of applicable process improvement
principles:
3Information is this paragraph is based on trade journals and oral communication.

4 Note that “sequential procedure” has quite a different meaning than the term “sequential method of project
organization” discussed earlier.
53
- Waste reduction. The goal is to reduce non value-added time due to excessive
specialization: however, other waste components are not as explicitly attacked.
- Variability reduction. With several strict due dates and quality control points during
the project, defects and problems do not easily migrate downstream. Preplanning is
facilitated through reduced external uncertainty.
- Cycle time compression. Sequence cycle time (site time of each sequence) is
compressed by utilizing more prefabrication and preassembly (of course, the total
cycle time may be longer than in conventional construction due to preparation and
prefabrication)
- Simplification. By establishing strictly sequential work packages, activity
interdependencies are reduced and organization and planning of construction is thus
simplified.
- Flexibility. Development of multi-skilled personnel is encouraged.
- Transparency. In the framework of each sequence, transparent material and
information flows are easier to arrange.
- Control of complete processes. The sequences roughly correspond to separate material
flow processes in construction. Processes are thus isolated from reciprocal
disturbances. Development and optimization of the whole span of a process is
encouraged.
- Continuous improvement. Long-term relationships are formed between firms for a
particular sequence, which facilitates continuous improvement and innovation.
The sequential procedure has been tried out in a rather large number of projects, and the
method has been further refined. It seems that this method is being adopted to use by owners,
contractors and subcontractors in France; however, we do not know of actual data.
The open building system
The open building system is an integrated set of rules and agreements concerning the
organization of design and building. The following features are stressed (Louwe & van Eck
1992, van der Werf 1990, van Randen 1990):
- performance concept
- modular coordination
- separation of the “support” (structural) and “infill” (interior work) parts of buildings
- specialized and multi-functional teams of craftsmen.
Especially the following process design and improvement principles are emphasized:
- Flexibility of design solutions in spite of relying on pre-engineered and prefabricated
components.
- Simplification through modular coordination and standardization of interfaces between
different building components.
- Control of complete processes, while allowing decision power for all concerned
parties.
- Continuous improvement through project-independent product development by
supplying companies.
This concept, having been developed over a period of 25 years, is now being introduced by a
number of contractors and suppliers in the Netherlands.
The new construction mode
The goal of this new building process is to remove the causes of the current inherent problems
in construction (Lahdenperä & Pajakkala 1992). It combines performance based
54
design and final product (rather than input resource) oriented construction procurement . On
the basis of performance requirements, supplier firms (or company groups) offer their pre-
engineered (and often prefabricated) solutions for different subassemblies of the building.
A detailed procedure for implementing building projects by means of the new model has been
prepared.
This model especially supports the following principles:
- Simplification: Through cutting off dependencies between subprojects, the effect of
disturbances is diminished.
- Control of complete processes: Integration of design and construction is encouraged.
Thus, learning through feedback is enhanced and product development is facilitated.
- Continuous improvement. Continuous collaboration is to be strengthened within firms
and between firms.
This model has been developed toward the end of 1980’s. The new building process has been
the subject of heated discussion during the last two years or so in Finland. It is understood
that it creates a lot of changes and it cannot be applied immediately as a whole. However, it
has been applied to supplying subassemblies to buildings and also to a few whole buildings on
an experimental basis.
Discussion
It is striking that these initiatives try to avoid or alleviate the problems caused by the
peculiarities of construction:
- one-of-a-kind features are reduced through standardization, modular coordination and
widened role of contractors and suppliers
- difficulties of site production are alleviated through increased prefabrication, temporal
decoupling and through specialized or multi-functional teams
- the number of temporary linkages between organizations is reduced through
encouragement of longer term strategic alliances.
While there are initial encouraging indications that these kinds of industry wide initiatives can
eliminate barriers and stimulate improvement efforts, it must be noted that the actual
implementation of process improvement has to be carried out by the organizations themselves.
Here we can again consider the analogy provided by manufacturing. Elimination of
construction peculiarities just brings construction to the same starting point as manufacturing.
Unfortunately, a large amount of waste also exists in manufacturing before process
improvement efforts begin.
Thus, we argue that process improvement initiated by the construction organizations is the
primary driving force that should be strongly promoted in industry wide programs. Changes in
project organizational systems will then be empowered by this momentum.
This kind of industry wide initiative might be especially beneficial to trigger improvement in
medium and small construction companies . On the other hand, good results in process
improvement have been gained by organizations not influenced by such initiatives. Also, the
ideas presented here cannot easily be applied to all types of construction. All in all, empirical
investigations are needed for clarifying the significance of these new organizational models for
process improvement and innovation.
55
6.2 Implementation of process improvement by engineering and
construction organizations
The inherent recommendation of the new philosophy to construction practitioners is clear: the
share of non value-adding activities in all processes has to be systematically and persistently
decreased. Increasing the efficiency of value-adding activities has to be continued in parallel.
The basic improvement guideline is thus: get started, define processes, measure them, locate
and prioritize improvement potential, implement improvement and monitor progress! Several
proven step-to-step methodologies that are useful even if most are narrow and not
construction oriented (Imai 1986, Robson 1991, Plossl 1991, Kobayashi 1990, Harrington
1991, Kaydos 1991, Rummler & Brache 1991, Camp 1989, Moran & al. 1991, forthcoming
CII report “Implementation Process for Improved Quality”). Earlier, some general remarks on
the implementation of process improvement were presented in section 3.8. In the following,
some issues that are likely to be encountered by construction organizations are commented
upon briefly.
Getting started is often the toughest problem. It might be wise to adopt a proven, even if
narrow, methodology for getting started. Total quality management often seems to be a good
first step. On the other hand, there are experts who suggest an approach more focused on just
starting to solve immediate problems and on learning-by-doing, rather than following specific
implementation methodologies (Schaffer 1988).
Process definition and measurement is crucial. Work processes must first be made
transparent by charting them. Next, the inherent waste in processes must be made visible
through suitable measures, and targets and monitoring should be focused on it. As discussed
earlier, a significant issue is to find measures which are project-independent. Even if
measurements are not as straightforward as in manufacturing, they are not an insurmountable
problem.
With regard to improvement potential, relations with other organizations might often be
observed as sources of problems. However, for obvious reasons it is better to start with
solving internal problems.
It is important to select and systematically use appropriate principles, techniques and tools.
In manufacturing, a considerable number of specific principles and techniques have been
developed for process improvement. To a perhaps considerable extent, they are also usable in
construction. For example, the ideas concerning basic industrial housekeeping are directly
applicable. Presumably construction-specific methods and techniques will emerge from
practical work, as occurred in manufacturing.
Owners may be in a critical position for advancing flow process based thinking. Even if
owners formally buy the output of all processes in a project, it is the capability of these
processes which produce the success of the project, or the unanticipated problems which
directly or indirectly cause losses to the owner. Thus, it is in the best interest of the owner to
evaluate bidders on the basis of their process capabilities as well as cost. Owners are often in a
unique position for complete process control and driving project-wide improvement.
Implementation of the new philosophy may be started with different levels of ambition. It is a
multidimensional change and learning process, which can be launched by picking up
56
just a few principles and techniques. If these are successfully institutionalized, adoption of
further principles will be more easily accepted.
Given the relatively high share of waste in construction at present, it is evident that notable
gains may be achieved in most organizations even by well directed initial efforts. Waiting for a
consolidation of construction specific implementation methodology - which certainly will
happen - is no excuse for sticking to the old routines.
6.3 Redefining major development efforts in construction
In many countries, major resources have been and are currently channeled to such
development targets as industrialization, construction safety, computer integrated construction
and construction automation. It is of prime importance that they are redefined in terms of the
new conceptual basis.
6.3.1 Industrialization
Industrialization has been discussed in several contexts above. Here we summarize:
Industrialization usually lengthens complete flow processes and makes them more complex
than in conventional site construction (although flow processes on site are surely shortened
and simplified). These processes must be improved in order to realize the potential that
industrialization offers.
6.3.2 Safety
Safety is one of the chronic problems in construction. The new production philosophy can
also contribute in this area.
Standardized, systematized and regularized production can be expected to lead to better safety
as a side effect ( Kobayashi 1990). There are several mechanisms for this:
- there is less material in the work area
- the workplace is orderly and clean
- the work flows are more systematized and transparent, so there is less confusion
- there are fewer disturbances (which, as it is known, are prone to cause accidents)
- there is less firefighting, and attention can thus be directed to careful planning and
preparation of activities.
Viewed on the whole, a production process that progresses towards the goals of the new
philosophy (less waste and variability) also improves its safety conditions. However, as far as
is known, no statistical studies to verify this have yet been done.
This view is reflected in the policy of one company to evaluate vendors on basis of their safety rate
(among other criteria): “Without safety, a production process cannot produce high quality products.”
Where the working environment is constantly changing, as it is in construction, safety is
ultimately dependent on the avoidance of unsafe acts by workers (Nishigaki & al. 1992). In
this respect, the principle: “Reduce the cycle time” should be applied. For example, the STOP-
method (Safety Training Observation Program), developed by Dupont, aims at creating a
procedure and atmosphere where all unsafe acts of workers, when observed by foremen, can
be immediately noted and corrected. This rapid cycle of deviation detection and correction
helps to realize a strict compliance to safety regulations in daily work.
57
One company visited by the author had achieved a dramatic improvement in safety through general
improvement in engineering and planning processes, the implementation of STOP-method, and other
safety measures. In a period of five years, the OSHA recordable accident rate was reduced by 94 %,
and the lost time accident rate by 84 %.
Another company had also achieved a steady decrease in safety rates and costs mainly through
systematic safety management and planning (including the STOP-method), and refined work
planning methods.
Thus, it seems that major improvements of construction safety can be achieved through a
three-pointed effort:
- improving engineering and construction planning processes to ensure safe, predictable
work flow on site
- improving safety management and planning processes themselves to systematically
consider hazards and their countermeasures
- instituting procedures which aim at minimizing unsafe acts.
Earlier approaches often viewed safety as a separate subject, which could be improved in
isolation from other issues in construction. However, safety depends on the nature of material
and work flows (and design and planning processes which support them), and must be
continuously maintained and improved as an aspect of those processes.
6.3.3 Computer integrated construction
It was argued earlier that a neglect of process improvement has turned into a barrier to
integration. As the previous analysis has shown, there are many different problems and
corresponding solutions in construction. The concept of (technical) integration as general
facilitation of information transfer by means of standardized data structures, to be
implemented over a long time period, is unfocused and long term oriented in comparison to
the immediate needs of the construction industry.
It has to be noted that technical integration provides only the infrastructure and potential for
integration. Technical integration does not help much if the processes are otherwise not of
high quality (errors, omissions, wait and inspection times, changes due to poor requirement
analysis, long feedback cycles); probably it just adds to mess and complexity. This has been
put succinctly with regard to CIM (Computer Integrated Manufacturing): “CIM acts as a
magnifying glass. It makes the good system much better; it makes the poor system much
worse” (Melnyk & Narasimhan 1992).
This analysis suggests that computer integration should not be a primary goal, but rather a
means among others for attaining process improvement goals. The need for process
improvement is often urgent and should be initiated with the means readily available
(simultaneous engineering, work process definition and improvement, team approach, vendor
quality programs) whereas many solutions for computer integration seem to take a longer time
period to mature.
On the other hand, computerized systems often provide unique and superior solutions for
process improvement (e.g. systematizing and error-proofing activities); however, without a
drive for process improvement, such applications have often diffused slowly. The following
are examples of this kind of solution:
- The transparency of a process may be augmented by computer visualization and
simulation.
- Knowledge-based systems may be used for systematizing and standardizing operations
and as error-proofing devices.
58
- Knowledge-based systems may be used for providing simplification advice
(constructability).
Integration is thus not an intrinsic goal, but should rather be motivated by specific
improvement needs of the construction process. Neither is CIC a construction theory; it
cannot substitute for the substantial theories of production processes.
Thus, we should clarify the roles of process improvement and information technology (IT):
process improvement is the primary phenomenon, which can be supported by information
technology. More specifically, information technology may benefit process improvement in
two ways:
1. Information technology may be used for automating specific conversions and
subflows, leading to variability reduction, shortened cycle times, added transparency
and other benefits.
2. Information technology may allow for process redesign, leading to radical process
simplification.
In both cases, IT solutions should be tightly intertwined with and preceded5 by organizational
and other forms of process improvement6. Isolated process redesign through computerization,
without a preceding culture of process improvement, is risky and difficult.
This fully conforms to the experiences gained in manufacturing in relation to CIM. The
current guidelines heavily stress process improvement before automation (Table 5).
Table 5. Implementation steps for CIM systems (based on current practices of leading CIM
users) (Melnyk & Narasimhan 1992).
1. Focus: Manufacturing objectives derived from corporate objectives and strategy
2 a. Simplification: Elimination of non value-adding activities or bottlenecks.
2 b. Integration: Introduction and management of coordination and cooperation between

activities and groups.
3. Automation: Application of well-defined computer aided procedures to physical or

information flows.
In the new approach, the integrated construction engineering process could be defined as
follows: A process of well defined design subprocesses which cross over specialist functions
and temporal phases in order to shorten iteration cycles and the whole design cycle and to
move from local optima towards the global optimum.
5 Of course, this should not be taken categorically; in many tasks computers are used routinely, and process
improvement and computerization can proceed in parallel.
6 This view is supported by a current CIFE study on the impact of integration on plant quality. The results,
even if still subject to final evaluation, strongly indicate that organizational integration had a considerably
larger positive impact on plant quality than technical integration in the projects studied.
59
Characteristic features of integrated construction engineering are the following (of course
these are goals for process improvement in general):
- systematic, upfront requirements analysis
- explicit stagewise refinement of specifications
- maximizing the number of iterations
- assuring that no omissions and errors flow downstream
- minimizing non value-adding engineering activities.
6.3.4 Construction automation7
In contrast to computer integrated construction, where at least partial implementation has
already occurred, construction automation is primarily a research and development theme in
most countries. The primary question asked has been: To which construction tasks can
robotics be applied? Answers to this question have been searched for in feasibility studies and
construction robot prototypes.
How should we analyze construction automation from the point of view of the new
production philosophy? Let us illuminate the relations between process improvement and
automation in construction by means of the framework presented originally by Béranger
(1987) in the context of manufacturing (Figure 8). Based on the principles for process design
and improvement, the following statements will be elaborated and justified below:
- automation should be focused on value-adding activities (reduce non value-adding
activities)
- process improvement should precede automation (balance flow improvement with
conversion improvement)
- continuous improvement should be present in all stages (build continuous
improvement into the process).
Automation should be primarily focused on value-adding activities
It is usually more effective to eliminate or reduce non value-adding activities than to automate
them. If elimination is not possible, these activities should be automated with simple and
inexpensive technology. However, it is usually not worthwhile to automate them with high
technology, because a competitor might find the means to eliminate those activities. Thus, the
automation efforts should be directed to value-adding activities.
Process improvement should precede automation
There are several specific arguments for focusing on process improvement before automation
(Béranger 1987):
- simplified, streamlined and stable material and work flow contributes to the reliability
of automated systems: automation hardware already has in itself a relatively high
frequency of breakdowns;
- multi-skilled personnel are needed during the automation stage: the development of
such personnel can be started during process improvement;
- process improvement and simplification decreases the difficulty and costs of
automation and thus increases the profitability of automation; and
- process improvement can be started immediately with little cost, whereas automation
can be a long, and expensive project.
7 The discussion is based on (Koskela 1992).
60
Preliminary
stage
Analysis of the activities in the work flow
Non-value adding
Value adding activities activities
Controllability of the Elimination or simplifi-

process cation
Stage 1 Reduced variability Process improvement,
design improvement
Simplified Eliminated
Pre-automation activity activity
Stage 2 Simple and cheap Automation
technology with simple
technology
Automation
Stage 3 High technology
Figure 8. Stagewise development of a production process towards automation (modified from

(Béranger 1987)).
Thus, on the way towards automation, the first stage is to enhance the controllability of the
process through variability reduction and to suppress non value-adding activities through
design and process modifications.
The second stage consists of automating with simple and inexpensive technology. Often the
existing machinery is augmented by means of simple mechanical or mechatronic devices,
which allow for autonomous operation of the machinery for some period or reduce human
activities in the work process.
Only in the third stage, after an accumulation of understanding and process efficiency, will
automation with high technology be justified as the next step towards cost reduction.
Continuous improvement should be present in all stages

The role of continuous improvement is significant especially at the stage of enhancement of
the controllability of the process and in pre-automation. But also at all stages of automation,
the efficiency and yield can be increased by continuous improvement. Thus the overall
conclusion is that both the implementation as well as the development of robotics have to be
embedded in a process of continuous improvement.
The argumentation presented above, though built upon manufacturing experience, is also
generally valid for building construction automation. Due to insufficient attention to
61
process improvement, processes in construction, in general, are not well controlled. As a
consequence of this, the share of waste is considerable in construction. In most construction
activity flows, it is more profitable to initiate process improvement activities than to automate
parts of the present activity flow. On the other hand, a simplification of the respective activity
flow, often a result of process improvement, decreases the investment needs for automation
and thus increases its profitability. Process improvement is both economically and
technologically a precondition for automation in construction.
Of course there are cases, especially in heavy civil engineering, where operations already are
highly mechanized or automation is necessary for safety reasons. Automation with high
technology may be the right goal in these cases.
In practice, the need for process improvement has not often been clearly recognized, and
consequently there is a twofold attitude to construction automation. A somewhat misplaced
optimism is shown especially by researchers8, who do not always see the necessity of getting
construction under control as the first step towards automation. On the other side, the
construction industry views automation with great doubts, because it is well aware of the out
of control situation. However, the industry does not usually perceive any remedy for
smoothing the way for automation.
Therefore, construction automation research should also investigate the stages preceding
automation (i.e. all items in Figure 8). Rather than solely trying to promote technological
solutions, attention should also be directed to the development of design principles of
construction tools and machines and related material work flows in general. Another
necessary role for R&D is to support practical efforts towards enhanced process
controllability, suppression of non value-adding activities, and pre-automation with simple
technology. The trend will surely be towards construction automation, but in the form of
incremental development, rather than through a long leap.
6.4 Research and education in construction
6.4.1 Obsolete conceptual basis
Current academic research and teaching in construction engineering and management lies on
an obsolete conceptual and intellectual basis. This situation is shared by many related fields
from which construction management has drawn theories, methods and techniques: industrial
engineering, accounting, organization theory, and management strategy theory.
As mentioned earlier, the new production philosophy has evolved as an engineering based
methodology, and theory formation has been lagging behind actual practice. The new
philosophy’s critique of established theories has been implicit and it has come from a
surprising direction. Not unexpectedly, the response of academic researchers and educators
has been slow and skeptical.
However, in some fields this paradigm shift is already clearly underway. In industrial
engineering, tens of books on the new paradigm have already been written, some of them
textbooks (Black 1991), and corresponding material is increasingly used in curricula. It is not
an exaggeration to say that all books have to written anew, and all old truths have to be
reconsidered. Accounting provides another example.
8 Including the present writer, before his conversion to flow thinking!
62
As for construction management and engineering, there is yet hardly any sign of a paradigm
shift. However, this field can avoid addressing the same fundamental questions with which the
neighboring fields are currently struggling.
The lagging response of academic research and teaching seriously hamper the introduction of
the new philosophy in construction. In consequence, theoretical understanding of the new
approach does not accumulate; however, such understanding is sorely needed for making the
new approach teachable and researchable.
Thus, it is urgent that academic research and education address the challenges posed by the
new philosophy. Otherwise, a decreased relevance of academic research will be the outcome.
6.4.2 Lacking foundations of construction management
It was argued earlier, in section 4.1, that our empirical knowledge and theoretical
understanding of construction is shallow and fragmented. We know little of what is happening
in construction projects; only in the last few years has the extent of quality deviations and
costs, for example, been subjected to direct analysis. However, quality costs are only the tip of
the iceberg of all non value-adding costs. Construction related theories, or sound action
principles based on them, are scarce.
It seems that the distribution of the present research efforts in construction is not balanced.
The great majority of long term research undertakings aim at applying new tools from other
technological fields, like information technology, artificial intelligence and robotics, to
construction tasks, whereas the conceptual and theoretical foundations of construction get
rather modest attention. However, as argued earlier, major payoffs could be realized through
developing these foundations.
It is not an exaggeration to say that the new conceptualization opens a practically new
research frontier. As stated earlier, the development of the new production philosophy has
been based on individual vision and pragmatic, shop-floor experiments rather than
breakthroughs in the theory. The practical validity of the philosophy has been proved in real
life implementations. Thus, rigorous validation and explanation of these principles and
methods should be included in the research agenda. Examples of new research themes raised
by the new conceptualization include the following:
- concepts and taxonomies for defining design and construction processes
- flow oriented site production planning and control tools
- measures for construction processes
- new non-hierarchical organization forms for site work
- procurement methods which advance process improvement.
6.4.3 Formalization of the foundations
However, increased knowledge of foundations is not sufficient; the foundations have to be
formalized. In manufacturing science, this has been suggested by several authors. The
Committee on Foundations of Manufacturing states that there is a need for an explicit core set
of principles, on the basis of which the manufacturing process, as a totality, could be analyzed,
designed, managed and improved (Heim & Compton 1992). Burbidge (1990) urges that
hypotheses be formulated that could be subjected to rigorous testing, with a view to their
acceptance or rejection. The trend towards formalized paradigms is further supported by
developments in artificial intelligence. In model based reasoning, a model, heuristics, etc. are
formalized for the subject considered.
63
The endeavor of Plossl (1991) gives a good example of a formalized foundation. He defines a
basic law of manufacturing with four clarifying corollaries (section 2.3). He further presents
30 fundamental principles of manufacturing and 10 strategies for applying them. Another
interesting approach promoting axiomatic principles for design is presented by Suh (1990).
These arguments in favor of increased formalization are also directly valid for construction
engineering and management.
6.5 Conclusions
The attitude to the new production philosophy in construction provides for a paradox: It
contains a promise of tremendous possibilities for improvement and of a solution of the
chronic problems of construction; however, the interest of both practitioners and academicians
has been at best lukewarm.
All in all, the example of manufacturing and pioneering companies in construction show that
there is a body of principles, methods and techniques, which are worthwhile to be understand
and adopt in construction. They make up a paradigm shift, that will be a long transformation
process of both practice and theory of construction engineering and management. The
momentum of this paradigm shift has only started to gather. This situation provides
opportunities for early adopters to gain competitive benefits.
64
7 Summary
A new production philosophy has emerged, with origins tracing back to development and
experiments of the JIT production system and quality control in Japan in the 1950’s. Now the
new production philosophy, regardless of what term is used to name it (world class
manufacturing, lean production, new production system, JIT/TQC, time based competition), is
the emerging mainstream approach practiced, at least partially, by major manufacturing
companies in America and Europe. The new philosophy already has had profound impact in
such industries as car manufacturing and electronics. The application of the approach has also
diffused to fields like customized production, services, administration and product
development.
The conception of the new production philosophy evolved through three stages : It has been
viewed as a tool (like kanban and quality circles), as a manufacturing method (like JIT) and as
a general management philosophy (referred to, for example, as world class manufacturing or
lean production). The theoretical and conceptual understanding of the new production
philosophy is still incomplete.
The core of the new production philosophy is in the observation that there are two kinds of
phenomena in all production systems: conversions and flows. While all activities expend cost
and consume time, only conversion activities add value to the material or piece of information
being transformed into a product. Thus, the improvement of flow activities should primarily be
focused on reducing or eliminating them, whereas conversion activities should be made more
efficient. In design, control and improvement of production systems, both aspects have to be
considered. Traditional managerial principles have considered only conversions, or all
activities have been treated as though they were value-adding conversions.
Due to these traditional managerial principles, flow processes have not been controlled or
improved in an orderly fashion. This has led to complex, uncertain and confused flow
processes, expansion of non value-adding activities, and reduction of output value.
A number of principles for flow process design and improvement have evolved. There is
ample evidence that through these principles, the efficiency of flow processes can be
considerably and rapidly improved:
1. Reduce the share of non value-adding activities.
2. Increase output value through systematic consideration of customer requirements.
3. Reduce variability.
4. Reduce cycle times.
5. Simplify by minimizing the number of steps, parts and linkages.
6. Increase output flexibility.
7. Increase process transparency.
8. Focus control on the complete process.
9. Build continuous improvement into the process.
10. Balance flow improvement with conversion improvement.
11. Benchmark.
Analysis shows that, as in manufacturing, the conceptual basis of construction engineering and
management is conversion oriented. Conventional managerial methods, like the sequential
method of project realization or the CPM network method, deteriorate flows by violating the
principles of flow process design and improvement. As a consequence, there is considerable
waste in construction. The problems tend to compound and self-perpetuate.
65
In project control, firefighting current or looming crises consumes management resources and
attention so totally that there is little room for planning, let alone improvement activities.
However, because conventional measures do not address it, this waste is invisible in total
terms, and is considered to be inactionable. Improvement efforts, like industrialization and
computer integrated construction, have often been hampered by their neglect of flow aspects.
Following the lead of manufacturing, the next task is to reconceptualize construction as flows.
The starting point for improving construction is to change the way of thinking, rather than
seeking separate solutions to the various problems at hand.
Thus, it is suggested that the information and material flows as well as work flows of design
and construction be identified and measured, first in terms of their internal waste (non value-
adding activities) and output value. For improving these flows, it is a prerequisite that new
managerial methods, conducive to flow improvement, are introduced. On the other hand, such
construction peculiarities as the one-of-a-kind nature of projects, site production and
temporary project organizations may prevent the attainment of flows as efficient as those in
stationary manufacturing. However, the general principles for flow design and improvement
apply for construction flows in spite of these peculiarities: construction flows can be
improved. Certainly it is a core issue to understand these peculiarities and to be able to avoid
or alleviate their detrimental effects.
In the construction industry, attention to the new production philosophy has grown slowly.
Quality assurance and TQC have been adopted by a growing number of organizations in
construction, first in construction material and component manufacturing, and later in design
and construction. The new approach, in its JIT-oriented form, has been used by component
manufacturers, for example in window fabrication and prefabricated housing. All in all, the
overall diffusion of the new philosophy in construction seems to be rather limited and its
applications incomplete.
Why has the diffusion of the new production philosophy been so slow in construction? The
most important barriers to the implementation of these ideas in construction seem to be the
following:
- Cases and concepts commonly presented to teach about and diffuse the new approach
have often been specific to certain types of manufacturing, and thus not easy to
internalize and generalize from the point of view of construction.
- Relative lack of international competition in construction.
- Lagging response by academic institutions.
However, it seems that these barriers are of a temporary nature. In practice, every
organization in construction already can initially apply the new production philosophy: defect
rates can be reduced, cycle times compressed, and accident rates decreased. Examples of
pioneering companies show that substantial, sometimes dramatic improvements are realizable
in a few years after the shift to the new philosophy.
The implications of the new production philosophy for construction will be far-reaching and
broad, as they are in manufacturing. The renewal of manufacturing has been realized in a
feverish burst of conceptual and practical development. This might also happen in
construction. A new set of measures will be used to pinpoint improvement potential and to
monitor progress in performance. Existing development efforts like industrialized
construction, computer integrated construction and construction automation will be redefined
in order to acknowledge the needs for flow improvement. New organizational solutions for
construction projects will be introduced to facilitate flow improvement as well as innovation.
66
Current academic research and teaching in construction engineering and management is
founded on an obsolete conceptual and intellectual basis. It is urgent that academic research
and education address the challenges posed by the new philosophy. The first task is to explain
the new philosophy in the context of construction. Formalization of the scientific foundations
of construction management and engineering should be a long term goal for research.
67
Bibliography
Akao, Yoji (editor). 1990. Quality Function Deployment. Productivity Press. Cambridge, Ma. 369 p.
Anon. 1991. Les échanges de données informatisées et l’amélioration de la qualité dans la filiere construction.
Plan Construction et Architecture. Paris. 133 p.
Ashley, David B, Lurie, Clive S. & Jaselskis, Edward J. 1987. Determinants of Construction Project Success.
Project Management Journal, Vol. XVIII, No. 2, pp. 69 - 79.
Ashton, J.E. & Cook, F.X. Jr. 1989. Time to Reform Job Shop Manufacturing. Harvard Business Review,
March-April, pp. 106 - 111.
Ashton, J.E., Fagan, R.L. & Cook, F.X. 1990. From Status Quo to Continuous Improvement: The
Management Process. Manufacturing Review, Vol. 3, Nr 2, pp. 85 - 90.
Asplund, Eric. 1991. MA och helhetssynen - en sammanfattning. In: JOT-tuotanto rakennusalalla. RIL K136.
Suomen Rakennusinsinöörien liitto. Pp. 49 - 58.
Ayres, Robert U. 1988. Complexity, Reliability, and Design: Manufacturing Implications. Manufacturing
Review, Vol. 1, Nr 1, March 1988, pp. 26 - 35.
Ballard, Glenn. 1989. Presentation to the Construction Industry Institute Employee Effectiveness Task Force.
March 9. 17 p.
Barkan, Philip. 1991. Strategic and Tactical Benefits of Simultaneous Engineering. Design Management
Journal, Spring 1991. Pp. 39 - 42.
Barrie, Donald S. & Paulson, Boyd C. 1984. Professional Construction Management. McGraw-Hill, New
York. 540 p.
Baudin, Michel. 1990. Manufacturing systems analysis with application to production scheduling. Yourdon
Press, Englewoof Cliffs, NJ. 360 p.
Bell, L.C. & Stukhart, G. 1987. Costs and Benefits of Material Management Systems. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, Vol. 113, No. 2, pp. 222 - 234.
Bendell, A., Disney, J. & Pridmore, W.A. 1989. Taguchi Methods: Applications in World Industry. IFS
Publications/Springer, Bedford. 399 p.
Bennett, John. 1991. International Construction Project Management: General Theory and Practice.
Butterworth-Heinemann, London. 387 p.
Béranger, Pierre. 1987. Les nouvelles règles de la production. Dunod, Paris. 212 p.
Berliner, Callie & Brimson, James A. (ed.). 1988. Cost Management for Today’s Advanced Manufacturing.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston. 253 p.
Bernold, Leonhard E. 1989. Simulation of non-steady construction processes. Journal of Construction

Engineering and Management, Vol. 115, No. 2, June, pp. 163 - 178.
Bernold, Leonhard E. & Treseler, John F. 1991. Vendor Analysis for Best Buy in Construction. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117, No. 4, December. P. 645.
Birrell, George S. 1980. Construction Planning - Beyond the Critical Path. Journal of Construction Division,
ASCE, Vol. 100, No. CO3, Sep. 1974, pp. 203 - 210.
68
Birrell, George S. 1986. Criticism of CPM for Project Planning Analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, pp. 343 - 345.
Black, JT. 1991. The Design of the Factory with a Future. McGraw-Hill, New York. 233 p.
Blackburn, J.D. (ed.). 1991. Time-Based Competition. Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL. 314 p.
Blaxill, M.F. & Hout, T.M. 1991. The Fallacy of the Overhead Quick Fix. Harvard Business Review, July-
August, pp. 93 - 101.
Bobroff, Jacotte & Campagnac, Elizabeth. 1987. La démarche séquentielle de la SGE-BTP. Plan Construction,
Paris. 206 p.
Burati, James L., Matthews, Michael F. & Kalidindi, S.N. 1991. Quality Management in Construction
Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 341 - 359.
Burati, James L., Matthews, Michael F. & Kalidindi, S.N. 1992. Quality Management Organizations and
Techniques. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 112 - 127.
Burati, James L., Farrington, Jodi J. & Ledbetter, William B. 1992. Causes of Quality Deviations in Design
and Construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 118, No. 1, pp. 34 - 49.
Burbidge, John L. 1990. Production control: a universal conceptual framework. Production Planning &
Control, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3 - 16.
Bättre materialhandling på bygget. 1990. SBUF informerar nr. 90:20. 16 p.
Camp, Robert C. 1989. Benchmarking: The Search for Industry Best Practices that Lead to Superior
Performance. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee. 299 p.
Carothers, G. Harlan Jr. & Adams, Mel. 1991. Competitive Advantage through Customer Value: The Role of
Value-Based Strategies. In: Stahl, M.J. & Bounds, G.M. (ed.). 1991. Competing Globally through Customer
Value. Quorum Books, New York. P. 32 - 66.
Cazabat, Bruno & Melchior, Gerard. 1988. Habitat 88: la demarche sequentielle. CSTB Magazine, no. 12,
Mars 1988.
Chew, W. Bruce, Bresnahan, Timothy F. & Clark, Kim B. 1990. Measurement, Coordination and Learning in
a Multiplant Environment. In: Kaplan, Robert S. (ed.) 1990. Measures for Manufacturing Excellence. Harvard
Business School Press, Boston. Pp. 129 - 162.
Chew, W. Bruce, Leonard-Barton, Dorothy & Bohn, Roger E. 1991. Beating Murphy's Law. Sloan
Management Review, Spring 1991, p. 5 - 16.
Child, Peter & al. 1991. The Management of Complexity. Sloan Management Review, Fall, pp. 73 - 80.
Ciampa, Dan. 1991. The CEO’s Role in Time-Based Competition. In: Blackburn, J.D. (ed.). 1991. Time-
Based Competition. Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL. Pp. 273 - 293.
Clough, R.H. & Sears, G.A. 1991. Construction Project Management. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 296 p.
Cnudde, M. 1991. Lack of quality in construction - economic losses. European Symposium on Management,
Quality and Economics in Housing and Other Building Sectors, Lisbon, September 30 - October 4, 1991.
Proceedings, pp. 508 - 515.
69
Compton, W. Dale. 1992. Benchmarking. In: Heim, Joseph A. & Compton, W. Dale (ed.). 1992.
Manufacturing systems: foundations of world-class practice. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Pp.
100 - 106.
Constructability, a Primer. 1986. CII Publication 3-1.
Construction Industry Institute. 1988. Concepts and Methods of Schedule Compression. The University of
Texas at Austin. 28 p.
Cornick, Tim. 1991. Quality Management for Building Design. Butterworth Architecture, Guilford. 218 p.
Davenport, Thomas H. & Short, James E. 1990. The New Industrial Engineering: Information Technology
and Business Process Redesign. Sloan Management Review, summer 1990. P. 11 - 27.
Deming, W. Edwards. 1982. Out of the crisis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. 507 p.
Drewin, F.J. 1982. Construction Productivity. Elsevier, New York. 150 p.
Dupagne, A. (ed.). 1991. Computer Integrated Building. Strategic Final Report. ESPRIT II: Exploratory
Action No 5604. December 1991.
Edosomwan, Johnson A. 1990. People and Product Management in Manufacturing. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 334
p.
Ettlie, John E. & al. (ed.). 1990. Manufacturing Strategy. Kluwer Academic Publishers. 256 p.
Fergusson, Kelly J. & Teicholz, Paul. 1992. Industrial Facility Quality Perspectives in Owner Organizations.
CIFE Working Paper, Number 17. Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University. 31 p.
Friedrich, D.R., Daly, J.P. & Dick, W.G. 1987. Revisions, Repairs, and Rework on Large Projects. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 113, No.3, September 1987, pp. 488 - 500.
Garvin, David A. 1988. Managing Quality. The Free Press, New York. 319 p.
Gibert, M. 1991. The sequential procedure: a new productivity route in the building industry. European
Symposium on Management, Quality and Economics in Housing and Other Building Sectors, Lisbon,
September 30 - October 4, 1991. . Proceedings, pp.134 - 139.
Golhar, Damodar, Y. & Stamm, Carol Lee. 1991. Just-in-time philosophy. A literature review. International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 657 - 676.
Greif, Michel. 1991. The Visual Factory. Productivity Press, Cambridge. 281 p.
Hall, Robert W., Johnson, H. Thomas, Turney, Peter B.B. 1991. Measuring up: charting pathways to
manufacturing excellence. Business One Irwin, Homewood. 180 p.
Halpin, Daniel W. 1976. Design of Construction and Process Operations. Wiley, New York.
Hammarlund, Yngve & Josephson, Per-Erik. 1991. Sources of Quality Failures in Building. Paper 1991:1.
Chalmers University of Technology, Department of Building Economics and Construction Management. 10 p.
Hammer, Michael. 1990. Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate. Harvard Business Review, July-
August, p. 104.
70
Harmon, Roy L. 1992. Reinventing the Factory II: Managing the World Class Factory. The Free Press, New
York. 407 p.
Harmon, Roy L. & Peterson, Leroy D. 1990. Reinventing the Factory. The Free Press, New York. 303 p.
Harrington, H.J. 1991. Business Process Improvement. McGraw-Hill, New York. 274 p.
Hayes, Robert H., Wheelwright, Steven C. & Clark, Kim B. 1988. Dynamic manufacturing. The Free Press,
New York. 429 p.
Heim, Joseph A. & Compton, W. Dale (ed.). 1992. Manufacturing systems: foundations of world-class
practice. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. 273 p.
Hester, Weston T., Kuprenas, John A. & Chang, T.C. 1991. Construction Changes and Change Orders: Their
Magnitude and Impact. Construction Industry Institute, Source Document 66. 38 p. + app.
Hopp, W.J., Spearman, M.L. & Woodruff, D.L. 1990. Practical Strategies for Lead Time Reduction.
Manufacturing Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 78 - 84.
Huang, Yu-Lin, Ibbs, C. William, Yamazaki, Yusuke. 1992. Time-dependent Evolution of Work Packages.
The 9th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction. June 3-5, 1992, Tokyo.
Proceedings, pp. 441 - 450.
Imai, Masaaki. 1986. Kaizen, the key to Japan’s competitive success. Random House, New York. 259 p.
Jaselskis, Edward J. & Ashley, David B. 1991. Optimal Allocation of Project Management Resources for
Achieving Success. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117, No. 2, pp. 321 - 340.
Johnson, H. Thomas & Kaplan, Robert S. 1987. Relevance lost - the rise and fall of Management Accounting.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston. 269 p.
Juran, J.M. 1988. Juran on Planning for Quality. The Free Press, New York. 341 p.
Kaplan, Robert S. (Ed.). 1990. Measures for Manufacturing Excellence. Harvard Business School Press,
Boston. 408 p.
Kaydos, Will. 1991. Measuring, Managing, and Maximizing Performance. Productivity Press, Cambridge,
MA. 259 p.
Kobayashi, Iwao. 1990. 20 Keys to Workplace Improvement. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. 264 p.
Koskela, Lauri. 1991. State of the art of construction robotics in Finland. The 8th International Symposium on
Automation and Robotics in Construction, 3 - 5 June 1991, Stuttgart. Proceedings. Pp. 65 - 70.
Koskela, Lauri. 1992. Process Improvement and Automation in Construction: Opposing or Complementing
Approaches? The 9th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction, 3 - 5 June 1992,
Tokyo. Proceedings. Pp. 105-112.
Krupka, Dan C. 1992. Time as a Primary System Metric. In: Heim, Joseph A. & Compton, W. Dale (ed.).
1992. Manufacturing systems: foundations of world-class practice. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Pp. 166 - 172.
71
Lahdenperä, Pertti & Pajakkala, Pekka. 1992. Future Organisation of the Building Process. Finnish National
Inventory. VTT Research Notes. Technical Research Centre of Finland. Espoo.
Laufer, Alexander. 1991. Coping with Uncertainty in Project Planning: a Diagnostic Approach. Manuscript.
Laufer, Alexander & Tucker, R.L. 1987. Is construction project planning really doing its job? A critical
examination of focus, role and process. Construction Management and Economics, 1987, 5, 243 - 266.
Laufer , Alexander & Tucker, R.L. 1988. Competence and timing dilemma in construction planning.
Construction Management and Economics, 1988, 6, 339 - 355.
Leach, Walter D. III. 1991. Continuous improvement in a professional services company, Bechtel Group Inc. -
Architect/Engineer/Constructor. In: Competing globally through customer value: the management of strategic
suprasystems, ed. by Michael J. Stahl and Gregory M. Bounds. Quorum Books, Westport, CT. Pp. 685 - 702.
Lenne, F. & al. 1990. Les vertus de l’organisation. Le Moniteur, 12 janvier 1990, pp. 32 - 37.
Levitt, Raymond E. & Samelson, Nancy M. 1987. Construction Safety Management. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, NY. 218 p.
Levy, Sidney M. 1990. Japanese Construction: An American Perspective. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
413 p.
Liebermann, Marvin B. 1990. Inventory Reduction and Productivity Growth: A Study of Japanese Automobile
Producers. In: Manufacturing Strategy. Ed. by John E. Ettlie, Michael C. Burstein & Avi Fiegenbaum. Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA. Pp. 213 - 223.
Liker, Jeffrey K., Fleischer, Mitchell & Arnsdorf, David. 1992. Fulfilling the promises of CAD. Sloan
Management Review, Spring, p. 74 - 86.
Lillrank, Paul & Kano, Noriaki. 1989. Continuous Improvement: Quality Control Circles in Japanese Industry.
Michigan papers in Japanese Studies: no. 19. Center for Japanese Studies, The University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, MI. 294 p.
Louwe, J.B.M. & van Eck, M. 1991. Future Organization of the Building Process: Inventory of Dutch studies.
TNO-report B-91-891. TNO Building and Construction Research, Rijswijk. 105 p.
Maskell, Brian H. 1991. Performance Measurement for World Class Manufacturing. Productivity Press,
Cambridge. 408 p.
Melnyk, Steven A. & Narasimhan, Ram. 1992. Computer Integrated Manufacturing. Business One Irwin,
Homewood, IL. 378 p.
Monden, Yasuhiro. 1983. Toyota Production System. Industrial Engineering and Management Press,
Norcross, GA. 247 p.
Moran, JW., Collett, C. & Coté C. 1991. Daily Management: A System for Individual and Organizational
Optimization.GOAL/QPC, Methuen, Ma. 101 p.
Nakajima, Seiichi. 1988. Introduction to TPM. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. 166 p.
Nam, C.H. & Tatum, C.B. 1988. Major characteristic of constructed products and resulting limitations of
construction technology. Construction Management and Economics, 1988, 6, 133 - 148.
National Contractors Group. 1990. Building towards 2001. 24 p.
72
Nishigaki, Shigeomi, Vavrin, Jeannette, Kano, Noriaki, Haga, Toshiro, Kunz, John C. & Law, Kincho. 1992.
Humanware, Human Error, and Hiyari-Hat: a Causal-chain of Effects and a Template of Unsafe Symptoms.
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford University. Technical Report nr. 71. 22 p.
Oglesby, Clarkson H., Parker, Henry W. & Howell, Gregory A. 1989. Productivity Improvement in
Construction. McGraw-Hill, New York. 588 p.
O'Grady, P. J. 1988. Putting the just-in-time philosophy into practice. Nichols Publishing, New York. 138 p.
Ohno, Taiichi. 1988. Toyota production system. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. 143 p.
Ohno, Taiichi. 1988. Workplace management. Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA. 153 p.
Osawa, Yukio. 1992. Planning and scheduling method by adopting the “flow chart method” to construction
process. Part 1: Doing a comparison of the “network method” focusing on planning stage of process-order.
Proceedings of the Eight Symposium on Organization and Management of Building Construction. July 1992,
Osaka. Pp. 185 - 192. (In Japanese).
Pall, Gabriel A. 1987. Quality Process Management. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 304 p.
Partnering Task Force. 1989. Partnering: Meeting the Challenges of the Future. A Special CII Publication.
Construction Industry Institute. 20 p.
Paulson, Boyd C. Jr. 1976. Designing to Reduce Construction Costs. Journal of Construction Division, ASCE,
Vol. 104, No. CO4, pp. 587 - 592.
Plenert, Gerhard. 1990. Three differing concepts of JIT. Production and Inventory Management Journal,
Second Quarter, pp. 1 - 2.
Plossl, George W. 1991. Managing in the New World of Manufacturing. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
189 p.
Porter, M. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Free Press, New York.
Puyana-Camargo, Manuel. 1992. Time-Based Competition Strategies for Construction. Purdue University,
School of Civil Engineering, Division of Construction Engineering and Management. 107 p + app.
van Randen, Age. 1990. Separation of support and infill: a chance for a quantum leap in productivity. Proc. of
the Open Industrialization - a Solution for Building Modernization. Stuttgart, February 21 - 23, 1990. Part 4,
pp. 27 - 33.
Robinson, Alan (ed.). 1991. Continuous Improvement in Operations. Productivity, Cambridge. 364 p.
Robson, George D. 1991. Continuous Process Improvement. Free Press, New York. 181 p.
Rockart, John F. & Short, James E. 1989. IT in the 1990s: Managing Organizational Interdependence. Sloan
Management Review, Winter 1989. P. 7 - 17.
Rummler, Geary A. & Brache, Alan P. 1990. Improving Performance. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
227 p.
Sanvido, Victor E. 1988. Conceptual Construction Process Model. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 294 - 310.
73
Schaffer, Robert H. 1988. The Breakthrough Strategy: Using Short-Term Successes to Build the High
Perfromance Organization. Harper&Row, New York. 196 p.
Schaffer, Robert H. & Thomson, Harvey A. 1992. Successful Change Programs Begin with Results. Harvard
Business Review, January-February, p. 80 - 89.
Schonberger, Richard J. 1982. Japanese manufacturing techniques. The Free Press, New York. 260 p.
Schonberger, Richard J. 1986. World class manufacturing. The Free Press, New York. 253 p.
Schonberger, Richard J. 1990. Building a chain of customers. The Free Press, New York. 349 p.
Schmenner, Roger W. 1988. The Merit of Making Things Fast. Sloan Management Review, Fall 1988. P. 11 -
17.
Senge, Peter M. 1990. The Leader’s New Work: Building Learning Organizations. Sloan Management
Review, Fall, pp. 7 - 23.
Shimizu. 1979. TQC of Shimizu. 59 p. Mimeo.
Shimizu. 1984. An Outline of TQC Activities at Shimizu. 37 p.
Shingo, Shigeo. 1988. Non-stock production. Productivity Press, Cambridge, Ma. 454 p.
Shingo, Shigeo. 1984. Study of 'TOYOTA' Production System. Japan Management Association, Tokyo. 359 p.
Shingo, Shigeo. 1986. Zero Quality Control. Productivity Press, Cambridge, Ma. 356 p.
Shinohara, Isao. 1988. New Production System: JIT Crossing Industry Boundaries. Productivity Press. 197 p.
Shohat, I.M. & Laufer, A. 1991. What Does the Foreman Do? Manuscript.
Smith, Stuart, Tranfield, David, Ley, Clive, Bessant, John & Levy, Paul. 1991. A New Paradigm for the
Organisation of Manufacturing. Integrated Manufacturing Systems 2,2, pp. 14 - 21.
Stahl, M.J. & Bounds, G.M. (ed.). 1991. Competing Globally through Customer Value. Quorum Books, New
York. 822 p.
Stalk, George, Evans, Philip & Shulman, Lawrence. 1992. Competing on Capabilities: The New Rules of
Corporate Strategy. Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp. 57 - 69.
Stalk, G. jr. & Hout, T.M. 1989. Competing against time. Free Press, NY.
Stewart, Thomas A. 1992. The Search for the Organization of Tomorrow. Fortune, May 18, pp. 92 - 98.
Suh, Nam P. 1990. The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York. 401 p.
Sullivan, L.P. 1984. Reducing Variability: A New Approach to Quality. Quality Progress, July, pp. 15 - 21.
Takada, Hiroo. 1991. An Overview on the Latest State of Precast Technology in Construction System.
Technology Institute of Shimizu Corporation. 85 p.
The Construction Management Committee of the ASCE Construction Division. 1991. Constructability and
Constructability Programs: White Paper. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 117, No.
1, pp. 67 - 89.
74
Thomas, Randolph H., Sanvido, Victor E. & Sanders, Steve R. 1989. Impact of Material Management on
Productivity - a Case Study. Journal od Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 115, No. 3,
September, pp. 370 - 384.
Umble, M. Michael & Srikanth, M.L. 1990. Synchronous Manufacturing. South-Western Publishing,
Cincinnati, OH. 270 p.
Walleigh, Richard C. 1986. What’s your excuse for not using JIT? Harvard Business Review, March-April
1986, pp. 38 - 42, 50 - 54.
Walton, Richard E. 1985. From control to commitment in the workplace. Harvard Business Review, March-
April, pp. 77 - 84.
Warszawski, A. 1990. Industrialization and Robotics in Buiding: A Managerial Approach. Harper & Row,
New York. 466 p.
Webster, Francis M. 1991. Integrating PM and QM. PM NETwork, April 1991, p. 24 - 32.
van der Werf, Frans. 1990. Practice on: “Open Building”. Proc. of the Open Industrialization - a Solution for
Building Modernization. Stuttgart, February 21 - 23, 1990. Part 1, pp. 53 - 63.
Womack, James P., Jones, Daniel T. & Roos, Daniel. 1990. The machine that changed the world. Rawson
Associates, New York. 323 p.
Zipkin, Paul H. 1991. Does manufacturing Need a JIT Revolution? Harvard Business Review, January-
February 1991, pp. 40 - 50.
75
BRIDGING THE GAPS – TOWARDS A
COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING OF LEAN
CONSTRUCTION
Sven Bertelsen1
ABSTRACT
Since the start of the work on the Lean Construction theory and methods in 1993, two
major contributions have governed the process as seen from practice. One is Lauri
Koskela's understanding of construction as a production, based on the Transformation-
Flow-Value concept (the TFV-concept), the other is Glenn Ballard and Greg Howell's
Last Planner method of production control.
These two contributions still stand as two isolated islands even though a number of
ideas have been presented in order to bridge the gap between them, concerning for
instance the understanding of project management, the value generation process and the
cooperation during the project life cycle.
The paper highlights and discusses the primary understanding behind the two main
lines of thinking and proposes minor modifications to the two major theories. Three more
viewpoints on construction are then proposed as stepping-stones across the gap between
the main islands. The use of these principles in project management is briefly touched
upon with a reference to recent Danish experiences.
Finally, areas for further research are proposed.
KEY WORDS
Construction, production theory, Last Planner, complexity, project management
1
MSc, Research Director, The Benchmark Center for the Danish Construction Sector, Strandgade 27B,
1401 Copenhagen K, DK Denmark. Phone +45 3264 1441. E-mail: sven@bertelsen.org
Proceedings IGLC-10, Aug. 2002, Gramado, Brazil

Sven Bertelsen 2
INTRODUCTION
The work on Lean Construction has up till now to a great extent been focussed on two
major areas in the understanding of the application and implementation of the new
production principles in construction: Understanding construction as a production, and
planning and managing the workflow within the construction process. Lauri Koskela has
been the outstanding leader in the first area; Glenn Ballard seconded by Gregg Howell
and others in the second.
This paper outlines the two major areas and discusses them briefly. In this, minor
revisions are suggested. Even though references are made between these two
contributions, they also stand as two islands not firmly interrelated. The paper thus
proceeds by suggesting three more viewpoints to the construction process, supplementing
Koskela's three basic ones and explaining to a greater extent the generality of the Last
Planner methods. Based on this thoughts on a new view upon project management is
proposed.
The paper is to a great extent based on the author's experiences from the ongoing
Danish development of the construction industry in general and its productivity and value
generation in particular. (Bertelsen and Nielsen 1999; Bertelsen et al. 2001)
These experiences are now put into a more scientific framework in a very unscientific
way by an author that is not himself a scientist. It is easier to act our way into a new way
of thinking, than it is to think our way into a new way of acting.2
LEAN CONSTRUCTION THEORIES
CONSTRUCTION AS A PRODUCTION
Lauri Koskela introduced his understanding of the construction process in the
groundbreaking 1992-paper: Application of the New Production Philosophy to
Construction (Koskela 1992). It has been elaborated upon in his later works and has for
now found its final form in his dissertation: An Exploration Towards a Production Theory
and its Application to Construction (Koskela 2000).
In this, Koskela explains that production since the end of the 18'hundreds has been
seen from different viewpoints. First as a line of transformations each adding value to the
product, since World War II as a flow taking the time aspect into consideration and a little
later as a value generating effort.
Production as Transformation
This understanding means that production can be seen as a number of discrete steps, each
independently adding to the value of the product. Optimizing each or any of the
operations will move the process as a whole towards an optimized condition.
Construction is normally understood in this way even today, and procurements are
made accordingly. Lowest price for each operation, order, contract or purchase is
expected to lead inevitably to the lowest total cost for the project as a whole.
2
Michael R. Lissack (1996): Chaos and Complexity – What does that have to do with management?

Bridging the Gaps – towards a comprehensive understanding of lean construction 3
Production as Flow
Based on the example provided by Henry Ford, this concept was introduced by the
Japanese car manufacturing industry and developed especially by Shigeo Shingo and
Taiichi Ohno (Shingo 1988; Ohno 1978). The works of Womack et al (1990, 1996)
introduced the concept to the Western industry in a popular form in 1990 by coining the
term Lean Production.
From this point of view, production is seen as a series of activities, where some are
adding value, others are not. The objective in optimizing the process is thus to reduce the
non-value adding activities and to optimize the value adding ones.
As it can be found that there are more non-value adding activities than value adding,
this moves the focus from the optimization of the value generation to the reduction of
waste.
The construction industry has yet to understand this. The perspective of time is still
defined as the time used for the transformations only, not as the sum of the time spent on
transformation and on the non-value generating activities: inspection, transport, and
movement.3 And the construction has indeed quite a lot of such activities. Hammarlund
and Rydén (1989) show that two thirds of Swedish plumbers' working time on the
construction site is used on such non-value generating activities, a fact which is
confirmed by Nielsen and Kristensen's (2001) studies of the erection of prefabricated
concrete walls on a Danish construction site.
Experiments using just-in-time logistics in the construction industry have
demonstrated substantial benefits, but the methods have been very hard to implement in
general. The reason is that an efficient flow of materials to the construction site calls for a
more reliable work planning than construction can normally provide. (Bertelsen and
Nielsen 1997)
Production as Generation of Value

As production became more lean – and by that also more efficient – the market started
calling for more interesting products. The mass produced product went out of fashion,
and the individualized product came in. Production became perceived as a value
generating activity, and the process had to become agile, if it wanted to survive.
The construction industry is a service provider. Its production is performed by a
combination of trades, and it has always been oriented towards generating value. It is the
nature of service and it is what the industry believes it provides. But the industry – not
having a well-defined product – has no tradition of really looking into what the true value
of its output is. The client's value parameters are not stated clearly at the outset of the
project and their fulfillment is not monitored systematically through the project life cycle.
Discussion
The TFV-concept opens up a complete new view upon the construction industry, and it
gives rise to new approaches to the management of the process, as discussed later.
However, Koskela's perception of the differences between transformation and flow
differs somewhat from the Japanese understanding as expressed by Shingo (1988).
Koskela understands transformation as discrete events, all adding value to the product
(barring defective work). Flow is seen as the chain of transformations inter-linked by
3
These four classes of activities or process stages were originally introduced by the Gilbreths (1922)

Sven Bertelsen 4
other events such as inspection, transport and waiting, not adding value to the product.
Figure 1: Production as a Flow as understood by Koskela (2000)

Shingo, on the other hand, explains production as a series of processes, each drawing on
one or more operations. He claims that operations – the work undertaken by men and
machines – and processes – what happens to the product along its travel through the
production system, are phenomena lying on two different axes. Even though Shingo does
not deal with value as a specific issue it can be said that in his view processes may be
value adding or not, whereas operations are always just the carriers of costs. It may also
be said that the Japanese understanding of the production as a value generation
phenomenon is taken hand of through the design transforming the customers value
perception into the product specification.
Figure 2: Production as Operations and Processes as understood by Shingo (1988)

Koskela's definitions are indeed the better in explaining the understanding of production
from a historical as well as a theoretical and an economic point of view. But Shingo's may
be more suited for the understanding of the nature of the construction process from an
engineering viewpoint, and thus in understanding the nature of project management.The
implications of this will be elaborated upon later.

MANAGING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS
Last Planner
The Last Planner approach to the planning and management of the construction process
was introduced by Glenn Ballard at the first meeting in the International Group for Lean
Construction – IGLC-1 in 1993 (Ballard 1993).
The principles were further elaborated upon at IGLC-2 in 1994 and by the paper:
Lookahead Planning: the Missing Link in Production Control, presented at IGLC-5 in
1997 (Ballard 1997) the Last Planner system was complete as a useful tool to be
introduced broadly in the construction process. (Bertelsen and Nielsen 1997)
The general idea is that in order to obtain an even workflow, a weekly work planning
and a careful monitoring of the plan performance is needed. This takes place through the
Last Planner, prepared at the site, as close as possible to the week in question. The Last
Planner defines what will be done.
An important tool in the Last Planner toolbox is the Percent Planned Completed –
PPC. PPC is monitored on a weekly basis and provides a measure of the plan reliability,
which is an important prerequisite for the even workflow.
In order to ensure a sufficient workable backlog, the Lookahead Plan supplements the
sliding window represented by the Last Planner. The Lookahead Plan is another sliding
window looking 5-8 weeks ahead. This plan ensures 'sound' work packages, i.e. work
packages for which all constraints are removed. The Lookahead Plan expresses thus what
can be done.
Above these two plans lies a third – the Master Schedule – identifying all the work
packages and their sequence for the job in question. This plan defines what should be
done. The whole planning system is dealt with in detail in Ballard (2000).
Discussion
The Last Planner method has proven itself a very useful tool for the management of the
construction process, and continuos monitoring of the planning efficiency through PPC
gives rise to an ongoing improvement, which often ensures a steady stabilizing of the
work flow and an improvement in the productivity. (Christoffersen et al. 2001)
The Last Planner thus stands as the landmark for lean projects and PPC as the
signboard for posting the success of the implementation of the principles.
The Last Planner is developed as a tool for obtaining even workflow mainly.
However, it may be more than that. Several other strategies in making the construction
process more smooth and efficient seem to lead to the Last Planner principle as well. One
example is the system for materials management developed in Denmark in the early
1990es (Bertelsen and Nielsen 1997), but also managing the flow of information seem to
give rise to tools like Last Planner. Both experiences tie Last Planner nicely into
Koskela's understanding of construction as a flow. Koskela (2001) looks at Last Planner
from the perspective of language/action, small wins and Management-as-organizing and
Management-as-learning. And recent Danish experiments (not yet reported) with self
managing construction sites using multi-skilled gangs, as well as studies of safety and
hazard on lean sites (not yet reported) point at the use of planning principles very similar
to the Last Planner.
These observations raise the question whether Last Planner is a tool based on a
generic characteristic lying deeper in the construction process. This characteristic may be

Sven Bertelsen 6
the complex nature of the project and of the system undertaking the process; a hypothesis
dealt with in further detail in a later section.
LEAN CONSTRUCTION PRINCIPLES
Womack and Jones

The lean thinking was originally outlined by Womack, Jonés and Roos in their 1990 work
and was further elaborated upon in the book Lean Thinking by Womack and Jonés
(1996). The guiding principles were now coined:
• Identify the value stream
• Optimize the operations that generate the value
• Make the product flow, waiting is waste
• Use a pull logistic
• Seek perfection in all operations
Even though these principles have been very useful in the implementation of lean
thinking in production as well as in construction, their validity can be discussed. For one
thing, the principles do not focus on minimizing waste in all its forms, only on waste in
the form of waiting. Also, waiting is not always bad. Certain buffers may be needed in
order to optimize the throughput, as Goldratt has shown by his Drum-Buffer-Rope
principle (Goldratt 1984, 1985). Also the workable backlog in the Last Planner system
represents waiting.
But more important, neither Womack and Jones nor Goldratt focus really on the
concept of generating value Their primary goal is reducing costs. This may be a valid
strategy when looking upon the mass producing industry, but looking at project based
one-of-a-kind productions such as construction, this is indeed a serious mistake.
Glenn Ballard
The validity of Womack and Jonés' formulation of the lean principles was challenged by
Koskela (2000) who – inspired by the accepted doctrine of operations management –
stated the objectives as: While getting the project done, maximize the value and minimize
the waste. These objectives were further elaborated upon by Ballard et al. (2001) who
divided the principles in a number of strategies and methods which can be used in the
implementation of the lean principles not only in construction, but in any project delivery
process
It is obvious that Koskela's formulation of the objectives is more precise and is
covering more aspects as well. However, it omits a very important point in the Japanese
thinking: the ongoing improvement, as expressed in the last of Womack et al's principles
and also included in a number of Japanese inspired management theories such as Total
Quality Management. As dealt with later: living in a world that is not perfect, one must
always seek towards perfection without ever getting there. Thus it is here proposed that
the lean principles should be:
While delivering the project, an ongoing effort should be made to maximize the value
and minimize the waste.

This formulation of the objectives will be used as the guiding principles to bridge the
gap between Koskela and Ballard.
Discussion
Even though the Last Planner can be linked to the theory of construction as a flow, which
Koskela (1992) tries explicitly, some more views on construction may be useful in firmly
bridging the gap between these two main contributions and in understanding the
construction process' peculiarities. One reason for looking for such a deeper
understanding is that the flow concept can not in itself explain the demonstrated success
of planning with a short time horizon, as used in the Last Planner. Why not just plan in
detail through the master plan and use that for the process control? Some deeper
understanding of the construction process is needed in giving the reason for the fact that
this system approach is not working.
Three such steppingstones between Koskela's TFV concept and the Last Planner are
proposed in the following section in the format of construction as a one-of-a-kind-
production; construction as a complex system; and construction as cooperation. Together
with Koskela's three fundamental principles – TFV – these three new perspectives can be
used to establish a new view on the construction process in general and its management in
particular, as outlined in the last part of this paper.
THREE STEPPING STONES
CONSTRUCTION AS A ONE-OF-A-KIND PRODUCTION

Construction is a production of unique products. No two projects are alike. Not only are
the projects different in their look and feeling, they are different in their details as well.
Construction projects are not combinations of otherwise standardized details as found in
the modern car production. They are products, which are different in any scale.
Construction is not the only industry that manufacturers a unique product. Movies and
IT-systems both have much of the same uniqueness. But movies as well as IT-systems
can be produced without the rigid assembly sequence that is another characteristic of
construction. The development of IT-systems takes place as modules, which can be
developed and tested as individual products before the final assembly. And any defect
module can be replaced after the final system test.
Moviemaking has many of the same characteristics. A great part of the production can
be made as a top down process, where the shooting takes place in a sequence best suited
the production efficiency and the final assembly at the cutting table is carried out as a
successive approximation to the final result. Even rework in the form of re-shooting a
scene or two is possible within reasonable cost.
And both productions to a great extent take place in controlled environments such as
studios or offices.
Construction on the other hand executes a production, which to a great extent is
locked to a rigid assembly sequence, where the operations can not be interchanged.
Furthermore, most of the production takes place in the haphazard and temporary
environment of the construction site.
Only in the early design phases can construction make use of the top-down process
best supporting creative work. While moviemaking and IT systems keep the top down
process in operation almost until the final production stages, construction is forced to

Sven Bertelsen 8
abandon this approach before 10 percent of the process is completed. This means that the
cooperation between the customer and the production team should be very close and well
structured in the early phases. But unfortunately, such a close cooperation is the exception
rather than the rule. Far too often is the drafting started without a detailed analysis of the
client's needs and requirement for the work in question, and a diligent preparation of the
design brief.
After the completion of the first design phases changes and rework are so expensive
that they are commissioned only when really necessary – which they often are – and then
with the associated high costs and delays as consequences. And even worse: changes and
rework add substantially to the already great dynamic in the complex system which
construction is.
CONSTRUCTION AS A COMPLEX SYSTEM

The understanding of complex systems is a science coming more and more into focus by
the development of computer systems capable of simulating their behavior. More and
more is it recognized that almost all living systems and most of the systems in society are
complex and at the same time highly dynamic (Waldrop 1992).
The study of complex systems moves the focus from studying the elements in the
system – the agents – to studying their connections and thus the network they form. By
doing so, a great similarity between otherwise different systems can be found, from the
system of cells in living organisms, to the anthill and the freeway traffic, and to the
construction production system as well. By simulating such systems in computers their
characteristics can be isolated and studied in detail, including how the strength of the
interconnections influence the network behavior (Kauffman 1995).
It can be shown that such systems often exist on the edge of chaos, meaning their
behavior is predictable in any detail only a few time-steps into the future. Whether the
system shows this chaotic behavior depends on the situation, particularly how close the
elements of the system are coupled. A well-known example of such systems is the
weather being close to the edge of chaos.
The flow of traffic on a freeway system is another example. If the traffic becomes too
dense, small disturbances in the traffic flow can release waves of traffic jam flowing
backwards through the system and staying there a long time after their cause has
disappeared.
Construction has many of these features as dealt with in more detail in Bertelsen
(2002). The construction project is a sequence of coupled processes leading to the
constructed artifact. The processes are all undertaken in the form of operations executed
by men and machines provided by the trade contractors participating in the project. But
these contractors all work on other construction projects at the same time as well,
utilizing the same resources in all their contracts and thereby forming another closely
coupled network across the project borderlines, and virtually to the whole construction
sector in the district or even the country. Kauffman (1993, 1995) studies the nature of
such networks in great detail and demonstrates that there need only be a few couplings
from each node to randomly chosen other nodes before the whole network acts as one.
The transition from individual nodes or small clusters to a whole takes place almost
suddenly, when the number of couplings is increased, just like a phase transition.
Not only is the workflow through the network of activities for the project in question
uncertain, because only the value generating processes are mapped, omitting the

inspection, transport and waiting processes in between. But also the couplings to the
resource networks are totally unknown and ever changing. These couplings are certain to
be tight because of the agents' efforts to maximize their resource utilization and the
dynamic in the whole network is great as well, because of the fluctuations in workflow.
The construction activities within an economic system are not independent processes,
but form one big system operating on its own without any over all management. Any
attempt to establish such management is deemed a fiasco – the system will freeze and all
processes almost certainly stop.
Brousseau and Rallet (1995) point at the construction industry's peculiarities, lack of a
formal management being one of them. Also Tavistock (1966) puts focus on the unusual
form of management found in construction compared to manufacturing practice. Looking
at construction from a complexity point of view makes this peculiarity quite natural.
Highly complex system can not be managed by a formal management approach, but must
be given a high degree of freedom to organize and manage themselves – order for free, as
Stuart Kauffman (1993) coins the phenomenon.
Goldratt (1984, 1985) presents a method for the management of a production system
consisting of shared resources for several products called the drum-buffer-rope principle.
Goldratt looks at a closed system within one economy only though, whereas construction
forms an open system guided by a multitude of economies. It seems that construction
must learn how to live with this chaotic situation.
As in many complex systems of this kind, the same patterns can be found in the
details as in the whole. The complexity of the whole construction sector can – on a
smaller scale – also be found within the project and even down in the individual task.
This makes any long-term predictions about the execution of the work next to impossible,
no matter how advanced tools are brought into operation.
However, this phenomenon is not understood by the industry. Project management is
based on the assumption that construction is an ordered system, which can be planned in
great detail and executed in all details according to the plans. The result is well known:
the plans are not followed, and closer investigation reveals that there exist a number of
unofficial and unauthorized management systems to ensure that the work gets done
(Tavistock 1966).
CONSTRUCTION AS COOPERATION
Looking at the construction process as the phenomenon it really is: a complex production
of a one-of-a-kind product involving big capital investments, the organization and
management comes into focus. What happens at the construction site can be seen as a
production in a virtual company.
A production takes place and people meet to undertake it. But they do not do so as a
production company!
The construction process has none of the characteristics of the modern manufacturing
company. Sub-optimization is found everywhere and nobody has the over all success of
the production as their personal success criteria.
The form of cooperation found in construction has long since been given up by other
industries, even the army. Orders and dress downs and only limited respect for the
professionalism and the work of others are the rules in construction. The result is
everybody’s fight against everybody, where the project management is forced to take the

Sven Bertelsen 10
role as the umpire, adhering to the formal rules instead of establishing an efficient,
common company culture.
The temporary nature of the project makes it further difficult to establish a positive
cooperation. In systems where cooperating as a whole is to the benefit of all, but where
bigger benefits can be gained for the individual by cheating, the temptation to cheat
becomes great, when the participants know that the cooperation has a limited duration.
Particularly so towards the end of the cooperation (Thomassen 1999).
And the construction process is just such a situation. Everybody is here for a short
duration and each has his own business to attend to. As an individual or as a trade
contractor. And nobody tries to generate team building and cooperation. Just the opposite.
Even the management stands on their rights and on the contractual details without any
concern for the real benefit for the project. No wonder things are as they are!
That things are bad may be hard to prove. But experiments with new forms of
cooperation and a new management style almost immediately show a better performance
through a more efficient process (Christoffersen et al. 2001).
DISCUSSION
Looking at the Last Planner system in the light of these three new views may lead to a
deeper understanding of why the system is so useful in practice. The one-of-a-kind nature
of the project makes it very hard to establish a reliable production schedule. Too many
things are uncertain and these uncertainties add up along the chain of activities as shown
by Koskela (1999, 2000). The short horizon for the planning of 'will do' is thus an elegant
way of overcoming this uncertainty aspect.
The same goes for the complex nature of the construction process and industry.
Complex systems often show a high sensitivity to initial conditions making them in
practice unpredictable for more than a few steps into the future. The feature is often
referred to as chaos. From this aspect Last Planner can be seen as the establishment of a
local window of order in an otherwise chaotic situation.
Finally, Last Planner can be seen as a means for establishing a co-operation between
equal parties at the construction site. The planning process executed as action learning
supports the cross trade cooperation and brings a mutual understanding of the importance
of an even work flow to 'the men on the scaffolding.'
These interpretations of Last Planner seem to support the hypothesis that Last Planner
is a tool reflecting the generic nature of the construction process.
THOUGHTS ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Having established a theoretical understanding of the process and its nature, an operative
wording of its objectives and a value oriented process model, it seems natural start
looking at the management of this system.
Several authors have shown that the traditional management of the construction
process is very poor. Indeed, it has been said that the construction management is the
management of contracts only (Koskela and Howell 2002).
Recent experiments with a divided project management, where the management of
contracts (or operations) are separated from the management of the process, and where a
separate management of the value generation have shown remarkable results in the form
of improved production, shorter production time, lower costs, increased workers' safety
and a higher client's satisfaction (Christoffersen et al. 2001). It is the author's feeling that

many of the characteristics of this new kind of project management can also be found in
most of the successful implementations of the lean principles in other countries, even if
they are not recognized and formalized as in the Danish implementations. Bertelsen and
Koskela (2002) looks deeper into project management along these lines.
FUTURE RESEARCH
The above outlining of the lean landscape as shown from a Danish viewpoint calls for a
future research besides the mainstream IGLC work.
One important issue is the understanding of construction from a complexity point of
view – a completely new and very challenging approach. This will inevitably bring the
co-operation between the participants in the form of an integrated but temporary human
system – not least the cooperation on the workers' level on the construction site – into
focus as well. Modern management theories such as management as learning and
management by walking around should be considered in the context of managing the
construction process.
Project management should be studied in a broader context as well, not least value
management. Value is a personal and situational parameter. The understanding of its
meaning in the light of the construction project as a complex system generating artifacts
with an expected long lifetime, several users and huge impact on our build environment,
is of paramount importance for the proper implementation of value management. At the
same time, experiences for the ongoing Danish experiments with the form of project
management should be reported and analyzed from a theoretical point of view.
AKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wishes to thank Lauri Koskela, Greg Howell and Glenn Ballard for useful
contributions and comments to this work.
REFERENCES
Ballard, Glenn (1993). Lean Construction and EPC Performance Improvement. IGLC-1,
Lean Construction, Balkema (1997).
Ballard, Glenn (1997). Lookahead Planning: the Missing Link in Production Control.
IGLC-5, 1997
Ballard, Glenn (2000). The Last Planner System of Production Control. School of Civil
Engineering, Faculcy of Engineering, The University of Birmingham.
Ballard, Glenn; Koskela, Lauri; Howell, Greg and Zabelle, Todd (2001). Production
System Design: Work Structuring Revisited. LCI White Paper 11.
Bertelsen, S. (2002). Complexity – Construction in a New Perspective. Not yet published,
available from the author.
Bertelsen, S and Nielsen, J (1997). Just-In-Time Logistics in the Supply of Building
Materials. 1st International Conference on Construction Industry Development,
Singapore.
Bertelsen, S. and Nielsen, J (1999). The Danish Experience from 10 Years of Productivity
Development. 2nd International Conference on Construction Industry Development and 1st
Conference of CIB TG 29 on Construction in Developing Countries.

Sven Bertelsen 12
Bertelsen, S; Christoffersen, A.K; Bojsen Jensen, L. and Sander, D (2001). Studies,

Standards and Strategies in the Danish Construction Industry Implementation of the Lean
Principles. Getting it Started Keeping it Going, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Lean
Construction Congress, Berkeley 2001.
Bertelsen, S and Koskela, L (2002), Managing the three aspects of production in
construction. IGLC-10
Brousseau, Éric and Rallet, Alain (1995). Efficacité et inefficacité de l'organisation du
bâtiment. Revue d'Economie Industrielle, n:o 74, 4e trimestre, pp 9-30.
Christoffersen, A.K; Sander, D and Bojsen Jensen, L. (2001). Application of Lean
Methods in the Danish Construction Industry. Getting it Started Keeping it Going,
Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Lean Construction Congress, Berkeley 2001.
Gilbreth, Frank B. and Gilbreth, L:M (1922). Process Charts and Their Place in
Management. Mechanical Engineering, January, pp. 38-41, 70.
Goldratt, Eliyahu M (1984). The Goal. Gower Press.
Goldratt, Eliyahu M (1985). The Race for a Competitive Edge. Creative Output
(Netherlands) BV
Hammarlund, Y and Rydén, R (1989). Effektivitetet i VVS-branschen, Arbetstidens
utnytjande, (Effectivity in the Plumbing Industry – the Use of the Working Hours, in
Swedish). Svenska Byggbranschens utvecklingsfond, Sweden.
Kauffman, Stuart A. (1993). The Origins of Order, Self-Organization and Selection in
Evolution, Oxford University Press.
Kauffman, Stuart (1995). At Home in the Universe, The Search for the Laws of Self-
organization and Complexity. Oxford University Press.
Koskela, Lauri (1992). Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction.
CIFE Technical Report #72, Stanford University, September 1992.
Koskela, Lauri (1999). Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View.
IGLC-7, Berkeley.
Koskela, Lauri (2000). An exploration towards a production theory and its application to
construction. VVT Technical Research Centre of Finland.
Koskela (2001). On New Footnotes to Shingo. IGLC-9, 2001.
Koskela, Lauri and Howell, Gregory A. (2002). The theory of Project management –
problem and opportunity. VTT research notes, Technical Research Centre of Finland.
Nielsen, Anni Schmidt and Kristensen, Ebbe Lind (2001). Tidsstudie af
vægelementmontagen på NOVI Park 6, (Time study of the erection of concrete walls on
the NOVI Park 6 Project). Part of a not-publicised master thesis, Aalborg University.
Ohno, Taiichi (1978). Toyota Production System, Beyond Large-Scale Production.
Productivity Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
Shingo, Shigeo (1988). Non-stock Production. Productivity Press, Cambridge.
Tavistock Institute (1966). Independence and Uncertainty – A study of the Building
Industry. Tavistock Publications, London.

Thomassen, Mikkel A. (1999). Escaping the Prisoner’s Dilemma – Trust and Mistrust
when Re-engineering the Danish Building Sector. International Conference on
Construction Process Re-engineering, Sydney.
Waldrop, M.Mitchell (1992). Complexity, The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order
and Chaos. Penguin Books.
Womack, J.P; Jonès, D.T and Roos, D (1990). The Machine that changed the world.
Rawson Associates.
Womack, J.P; Jones D.T (1996). Lean Thinking. Touchstone Books.

Estudio sectorial: productividad en la construcción
Luis Percul
Resumen
El año 2004 encuentra a la industria de la construcción en un estado de incertidumbre,

viviendo el inicio de un proceso de reactivación, luego de haber atravesado su peor crisis de los
últimos 30 años. Esta crisis se llevó consigo a los talleres metalúrgicos y a los operarios calificados
en distintos oficios, desarmó a los más importantes estudios de arquitectura e ingeniería y terminó
con la mayoría de las empresas constructoras pequeñas y medianas. Este artículo, escrito desde la
óptica de un practicioner de la industria, está organizado del siguiente modo: En la sección 1, se
describen las dificultades del sector, desde distintos puntos de vista. A pesar de las dificultades, la
sección 2 es una invitación a trabajar por la productividad, seguridad y calidad en la industria. La
sección 3 describe algunas limitaciones de los profesionales que trabajan en la industria que
contribuyen al origen de los problemas analizados. La sección 4, la más larga del trabajo, es una
propuesta integral para mejorar la calidad y productividad en la industria de la construcción. La
sección 5, finalmente, presenta algunas conclusiones del trabajo y da recomendaciones basadas en
él.
1. Dificultades que atraviesa el sector
Comenzamos describiendo en esta sección los principales factores que afectan hoy a la
actividad. Ellos están vinculados con el mercado, los recursos humanos, la productividad, la
seguridad, la calidad y sus normas, el cumplimento de plazos y los productos de la industria.
Examinemos estos factores.
Mercado: El sector privado se está lanzando a invertir en pequeños desarrollos, pero sin
crédito para constructores ni para compradores, este segmento no logra despegar con volumen para
mover la economía. El sector público es una gran promesa, tal vez se cumpla y cambie el panorama
en 2004. Las pocas empresas constructoras que quedaron en pie se debaten internamente sobre la
posibilidad de invertir y crecer o quedarse quietos esperando que el incipiente efecto reactivador se
instale para quedarse.
Recursos humanos: La construcción siempre tuvo operarios y supervisores poco
calificados, pero conocedores de su oficio. En los últimos años esto ha empeorado pues, ante la
caída de la construcción, los trabajadores más capacitados se han dedicado a otra actividad, por lo
que cuesta muchísimo encontrar hoy, a pesar del alto desempleo, trabajadores con un nivel propio
de productividad razonable.
Productividad: Si a la falta de capacidad de los trabajadores se le suma la desinversión en
equipamiento (con precios a "valor dolarizado") se llega a valores de productividad muy bajos,
mucho más bajos que en los países desarrollados.
Seguridad: Existe un alto nivel de inseguridad. Las empresas pequeñas y medianas
desconocen la necesidad de aplicar normas de seguridad y no hay controles suficientes del estado.
Cumplimiento de plazos: Como una constante propia de nuestra sociedad, ni los estudios
de arquitectura, ni los asesores, ni los proveedores de insumos, ni los subcontratistas de mano de
obra, ni los talleres que producen bienes semi-elaborados cumplen con los plazos pactados. Esto
obliga a permanentes reprogramaciones, negociaciones, mayores gastos y caída de la productividad.
Normas de calidad: No están calificados ni cumplen normas de calidad el 90% de los
proveedores de insumos, el 100% de los subcontratistas, el 95% de los estudios de arquitectura e
ingeniería. Tampoco cumplen normas de calidad el 100% de las constructoras pequeñas y
medianas.
Productos: Los productos son los nuevos proyectos. Casi todo es nuevo, de una obra a otra.
Los productos terminan siendo trajes a medida, únicos, irrepetibles, caros, a gusto del cliente. De
una obra a otra las empresas constructoras van cambiando de subcontratistas, buscando alguno que
cumpla. Así, no se produce el desarrollo de los proveedores y subcontratistas y no hay curva de
aprendizaje posible, como se da en otras industrias. No hay repetición que permita medir
estándares, controlar la eficacia (cumplimiento de objetivos de cantidad y plazo) y la eficiencia de
uso de los recursos (standard real / standard teórico). A su vez, las variables macro de la economía,
(devaluación, inflación, pesificación, dolarización, aumentos salariales por decreto) impiden un
claro análisis de efectividad (rentabilidad del proyecto).
2. Pensando en crecer
Luego de este panorama que parece sombrío, no debemos quedarnos congelados aceptando
nuestra improductividad como un paradigma inmodificable, sino que debemos aprovechar el
momento de incipiente reactivación de la economía para encontrar en nuestros errores del pasado un
conjunto de oportunidades donde poder focalizar nuestros esfuerzos y dar, verdaderamente, un
paso hacia adelante en la calidad y la productividad de nuestras compañías.
Es este el momento en que estamos relanzando proyectos dormidos. Es este el momento en
que nos vuelven a contactar viejos clientes para saber "en qué andamos". Es el momento en que nos
llaman nuevos clientes que fueron defraudados por empresas ya desaparecidas. ¿Qué les diremos?
¿Que no aprendimos nada de la crisis pasada? ¿Que haremos todo igual ? ¿Por qué confiarían en
nosotros?
Las empresas que no encuentren las oportunidades de mejora en sus errores del
pasado y que no entiendan que deben subirse al tren de la productividad caerán, como
cayeron en el pasado.
La construcción se debate en el camino de la calidad y la productividad, sin rumbo cierto y
las empresas constructoras no desarrollan a proveedores o subcontratistas bajo conceptos de
aseguramiento de la calidad y mejora de productividad. Los plazos, las especificaciones, la
seguridad y la satisfacción de los clientes se despedazan en medio de procesos constructivos torpes
y artesanales. ¿Qué es lo que nos pasa en la construcción?
3. Diagnóstico
Los constructores, arquitectos o ingenieros, creemos que la capacitación técnica adquirida

en la universidad es suficiente para administrar empresas y recursos humanos, proveedores y
subcontratistas, clientes y normas. Sin embargo no nos han enseñado a trabajar con gente. Somos
ciegos al contexto social. No hemos desarrollado habilidades o competencias genéricas que nos
asistan a crecer como empresarios autosuficientes.
En general, luego de incorporar en nuestra cabeza competencias específicas de la propia
carrera, no seguimos incorporando técnicas que nos ayuden al desarrollo de una visión, de una
misión ni de una estrategia competitiva. No sabemos cómo armar planes de negocios, que
satisfagan a las necesidades de nuestras compañías y de nuestros circunstanciales o potenciales
clientes.
Los constructores trabajamos con la palabra, todo el día, todos los días. Sin embargo, no
hemos recibido ninguna capacitación para hablar. No conocemos el poder del lenguaje. No sabemos
manejar el texto y el contexto de nuestras presentaciones y solicitudes, por lo que terminamos
dando órdenes que queremos hacer cumplir sin lograr el convencimiento de los demás.
Por supuesto, somos testigos de que todo esto se traduce en (magros) resultados.
Es entonces que partiendo de nosotros nacen los problemas. Y es en nosotros donde
debemos encontrar la solución. Debemos olvidar la miserable explicación de que el mundo está
contra nosotros. Debemos ser responsables. Debemos ser capaces de dar respuestas. Debemos tratar
de trascender en el alcance de nuestro propio desarrollo para que el entusiasmo por el hacer bien las
cosas nos rodee.
4. Propuesta de trabajo
El camino para subir en la escalera de la calidad y la productividad en la construcción sólo

se podrá lograr a través de una gestión profesional de máxima calidad, que sea el motor que trabaja
en la modificación de los problemas diagnosticados. Por lo tanto, consideramos que se debe
capacitar, desarrollar, medir y analizar, la calidad de la gestión de los profesionales de la
construcción. Esta debe ser la base de trabajo en la agenda de los máximos directivos de los
estudios de arquitectura e ingeniería, de los desarrolladores inmobiliarios y de las empresas
constructoras pequeñas, medianas y grandes.
El proceso de cambio debe estar en la agenda de cada profesional, que debe autoevaluar sus
falencias y trabajar en sus organizaciones sobre algunos de los siguientes tópicos:
4.1 El constructor debe ser el líder del cambio
Se debe iniciar un proceso de cambio que afecte todos los pasos que integran el proceso de
construcción, desde el nacimiento del proyecto hasta el momento de la entrega y puesta en marcha.
El cambio debe ser liderado por los constructores, quienes deben encontrar los caminos para
eliminar, una a una, las deficiencias que hacen que la construcción sea la mas “imperfecta” de las
industrias. El proyecto debe estar incorporado a su mente. Debe estar “in corpore”. Lo debe sentir
dentro suyo, para poder iniciar el proceso de cambio.
“ El cambio es hacer lo que otros creen que no podemos hacer. Hacer el cambio ya, para
evitar dudas y desconfianza.“
Para cambiar, el constructor:
Debe estar convencido
Debe reconocer falencias
Debe escuchar al cliente
Debe analizar contradicciones
Debe predicar con el ejemplo
Debe entender que el cambio “duele”.
El constructor debe ser un líder promotor del proyecto:
Para persuadir y direccionar la reingeniería del proyecto del cliente
Para promover el interés y respaldo de su propia empresa
Debe formar un equipo de cambio
El constructor debe ser líder de los procesos constructivos:
Para aplicar principios de constructibilidad al proyecto.
Para formar un equipo ejecutor del proceso constructivo
Para liderar el equipo de asesores externos que mejores los procesos
El profesional no puede caer en la trampa clásica de explicar los malos resultados. No
puede funcionar la construcción a través de "profesionales explicadores" sino a través de líderes.
Deben eliminarse del lenguaje operativo los términos: le dije, me dijo, le avisé, lo llamé, me
preguntó, parece que, ... y el resto de muletillas conocidas.
4.2 El constructor debe romper paradigmas
Estamos rodeados de paradigmas: un conjunto de verdades asumidas por el conjunto de los

actores que impiden ver la realidad y nos arrastran en la práctica de la construcción con modelos de
organización de proyectos perimidos, caros y de baja perfomance.
4.2.1 El paradigma de la obra
Siempre se escucha, como una verdad inexorable, que se puede convivir en nuestro ámbito
de trabajo con la suciedad, con la inseguridad, con la falta de calidad y con la insatisfacción del
cliente ”... porque esto es una obra ...”. Por alguna razón, la estructura mental de nuestra gente
impide pensar en la construcción como una industria, adoptando las técnicas de dirección válidas
para cualquier tipo de compañía, válidas para fabricar, por ejemplo, autos o medicamentos.
4.2.2 El paradigma del sistema parental
El director de obra da órdenes al jefe de obra. El jefe de obra da órdenes a los

subcontratistas. Los subcontratistas dan órdenes a sus capataces. Y así sigue la obra, con órdenes y
más órdenes para tratar de hacer cumplir órdenes incumplidas. Perseguimos el control y la
obediencia como bienes únicos e irrepetibles. Incluso creo que nos confundimos tanto que no
pensamos en cómo hacer la obra sino en cómo hacer obedecer órdenes.
4.2.3 El paradigma de hacer perder al otro
El mercado está revuelto. Hay poco trabajo y una lucha descarnada de precios. Rara vez en
la construcción se repiten los lazos cliente - empresa – subcontratistas – proveedores. No se
producen alianzas estratégicas, capacitación de proveedores y subcontratistas, capacitación del
personal de supervisión ni estandarización de procesos constructivos. Como resultado, los
proveedores no se equipan ni adoptan nuestros estándares como propios. La pérdida del ejercicio
win-win nos significa aumentar nuestras estructuras de seguimiento y control, tratando de evitar que
la otra parte nos haga perder.
4.2.4 El paradigma del costo de la calidad
Los constructores ven la calidad como el agregado de costos en sus procesos constructivos.
Sin embargo, la calidad está dada por un conjunto de actividades que permiten producir a un menor
costo por su diseño, la simpleza de producción, la facilidad de entrega y el cumplimento total de las
especificaciones del cliente. Permanentemente, ejecutamos tareas que no agregan valor al producto
que recibe el cliente. El cliente sólo paga por el instante en que un material está colocado en su
obra, por el instante en que el operario coloca el ladrillo. No paga las horas de transporte, las horas
de almacenamiento, los días de espera, el chequeo de los remitos, la emisión de órdenes de pago, el
retrabajo una y otra vez...
Si estudiamos nuestros procesos, veremos que por cada operación que agrega valor (el
cliente paga por el instante de producción) desarrollamos cientos de actividades que no agregan
valor (el cliente no paga por nuestros procesos de compra, transporte, recepción, reejecución,
almacenamiento, pagos y cobros, etc.). En general, cuando hablamos de trabajar con calidad, solo
nos concentramos en la producción bruta o en la elección del insumo, sin trabajar sobre el conjunto
de actividades que no generan valor para el cliente.
Trabajar con calidad consiste, en parte, en reducir al mínimo la ejecución de tareas por las
cuales el cliente no paga. Reducir los desperdicios, retrabajos, controles y administración de
materiales. Reducir los costos de dirección y supervisión. Trabajar con calidad en hacer las cosas
más fáciles, seguras y rápidas.
4. 3 El constructor debe aplicar procesos de mejora continua
Para romper los paradigmas, el constructor debe trabajar en la implementación de procesos

de mejora continua. Estudiando el ciclo de vida de distintas empresas, se puede observar que
mientras que las empresas desesperadas encuentran el callejón sin salida de la reestructuración o
reducción de gastos, las compañías inteligentes han preferido hacer reingeniería de sus procesos e
implementar técnicas de mejora continua, arrancando de raíz con los trabajos innecesarios y
alineando cada proceso de la compañía en la dirección de la satisfacción del cliente, con claros
procedimientos de operación y llegando a la reducción de los tiempos de proceso y la calidad total.
La mejora continua está íntimamente vinculada con la estandarización, como se
esquematiza en la Figura 1. La mejora continua (M.C.) nos permite subir, simbólicamente, por un
plano inclinado a medida que progresamos. Por otra parte, la estandarización (Std.) impide que
nuestra forma de trabajo vuelva hacia atrás (empeore) por efecto de un sinnúmero de factores que,
si no se controlan continuamente mediante estándares, llevan a un deterioro de la performance.
La pregunta diaria debe ser: ¿Cómo hacemos las cosas más rápido y con menos
desperdicio? Hoy las empresas exitosas piden a sus empleados, antes que a los expertos, que
rediseñen los procesos y los flujos de trabajo. Las empresas exitosas trabajan en mejora continua
sobre el empowerment de sus empleados, buscando en la satisfacción de sus clientes la creación de
mercados para el futuro. Las empresas desesperadas, aplican la receta del downsizing, ajustando e
incumpliendo.
M.C.
MQ
C
S
Std Figura 1. Interacción mejora continua- estandarización
. t
Para d implementar un proceso de mejora continua, debemos empezar cambiando nuestras
. de ponernos a tocar los procesos. Es así, que es aconsejable seguir las siguientes
conciencias antes
etapas.
La revolución de la conciencia
Suponer en todas las actividades que el sistema actual de producción es malo.

Cambiar los sistemas de comunicación entre las personas, encontrando los mecanismos

de transmisión de una visión compartida entre los miembros del equipo de trabajo
El trabajador pasa de controlado a capacitado

Los supervisores pasan de supervisores a formadores

Las estructuras, de jerárquicas a planas.

El cambio en los procesos
Es importante diseñar un sistema global de calidad y productividad, incorporando los conceptos

y herramientas utilizados por las empresas más exitosas. Entre estos conceptos y herramientas
tenemos los siguientes.
Mejora continua

Ciclos de resolución de problemas

Círculos de calidad

Eliminación de desperdicios ("no valores")

Nuevos sistemas de información

Nuevas tecnologías

Sistemas de sugerencias

Mantenimiento productivo total

Calidad total

Producción según programa

Organización y disciplina en el ámbito de trabajo

Normas de calidad ISO

Revisión de contrato

Organización de la obra

Programa de calidad del proyecto

Control de documentación

Identificación y trazabilidad del proyecto

Control de procesos

Inspecciones y ensayos

Control de no conformidades

Acciones correctivas y acciones preventivas

Capacitación

Trabajo en equipo

Comunicación, comunicación, comunicación

4.4 Trabajar en procesos de ingeniería de valor
Los constructores debemos examinar de qué manera podemos mejorar nuestros propios
proyectos desarrollando procesos de Ingeniería de Valor (VE, por sus siglas inglesas). Muchas
veces nos preguntamos qué es la ingeniería de valor:
♦ La Ingeniería de valor no es el arte de minimizar todas las oportunidades de ser creativo en
un proyecto.
♦ La Ingeniería de valor no es la ciencia de minimizar los costos bajando la calidad.
♦ La Ingeniería de valor es el trabajo aplicado a aumentar al máximo el valor del producto
mientras se minimizan los costos
Probablemente, dependiendo de las propias experiencias en las que trabajamos en el pasado,
podamos decir que son válidas alguna de las dos primeras definiciones. Pero no debemos
equivocarnos. Las dos primeras definiciones corresponden a simples procesos de reducción de
costos. El verdadero proceso de Ingeniería de Valor es aquel que agrega valor al proyecto,
mejorando plazo, costo y calidad.
En todo proceso de construcción, el 80% del éxito se juega en el primer 20% del plazo,
momento en que se toman las decisiones mas importantes de como será el producto. De ahí, que es
clave iniciar en forma temprana el proceso de VE, para que sea verdaderamente efectivo.
Generalmente, en un proyecto de obra concebido por un dueño, se contrata primero a un arquitecto
que desarrolla el proyecto con planos y especificaciones. Luego de una licitación se contrata a un
constructor que desarrolla su propia ingeniería, e intenta agregar algo de valor para su propio
provecho, porque recibió un proyecto cerrado y definido, en el cual quedaron oportunidades de
mejora no aprovechadas. Para nosotros, es mucho mejor para el comitente contratar a un arquitecto
y, con el desarrollo parcial del proyecto, seleccionar un constructor que integre el equipo de
desarrollo, incorporando al proyecto definitivo valor ganado para el comitente.
¿Usted ve la diferencia? Es clave entender la importancia de encontrar en momento donde debe
entrar el constructor dentro de un proceso constructivo. Nuestra idea es que debe entrar lo antes
posible, desde el mismo momento del diseño. La VE debe evaluar la filosofía del proyecto, el
cumplimiento de las necesidades del comitente y la constructibilidad global de la obra. No debe
estar intentando rediseñar el proyecto entero, sino que debe integrarse al equipo de proyecto para
sumar valor.
La VE es una práctica cuya meta es, siempre, lograr el valor por el dinero. VE es el conjunto de
técnicas que mejora las prácticas que la dirección puede emplear. Su aplicación es exitosa para
mejorar la planificación estratégica, la calidad y la durabilidad. Se diferencia de otras herramientas
de dirección fundamentalmente en que es multidisciplinaria. Los resultados más importantes son:
♦ Reducción del plazo total del proyecto: las obras se inician antes (fast track) y se hacen mas
rápido.
♦ Reducción del costo directo del proyecto: menores costos de materiales y menor cantidad de
horas hombre. Uso más racional de los recursos. Aumento sustancial de la productividad de la
mano de obra.
♦ Reducción de costos indirectos: a mejor constructibilidad, menor plazo, menor supervisión,
menor cantidad de retrabajos.
♦ Mayor confianza de los clientes, mejorando la relación entre las partes por lo que se logra un
mejor posicionamiento de cara al futuro.
Para cumplir con los objetivos definidos, el responsable del proceso de VE debe ser cuidadoso
en la planificación y en la medición de resultados.
Debe planificar:
• plan de entrega de ingeniería
• diseñar procesos y secuencias
• plan de trabajos, plan de compras y subcontratos
Debe ser preciso:

• control de costos
• control de plazos
• control de calidad
• control de ingreso de suministros
• control de procesos y secuencias
• control de efectividad (rentabilidad del proyecto)
• control de eficacia (cumplimiento de objetivos de cantidad y plazo)
• control de eficiencia de uso de los recursos (stdandard real / standard teórico)
• continua coordinación y actualización de planes y compromisos
• control de servicios generales (ingreso de insumos, administración y mantenimiento de equipos)
4.5 Trabajar en un proceso de partnering
Si usted ha trabajado en la industria de la construcción durante algún tiempo, entiende la

necesidad del trabajo en equipo. Al contrario de algunas otras actividades, es casi imposible no
asociarse con otros y no discrepar en muchísimos puntos. Es clave entonces desarrollar la idea del
partnering.
En una primera mirada, la idea del partnering parece algo teórica o liviana. En particular,
porque siempre se encuentra en los proyectos un importante nivel de hostilidad entre dos o más
partes intervinientes. La idea del partnering es reunir a los individuos para encontrar el nivel de
acuerdo mínimo necesario para que el proyecto exitoso sea la meta común. Para crear entonces un
estado de partnering, se debe empezar a trabajar en conjunto desde el nacimiento del proyecto, para
que diseñadores, contratistas y dueños no nos "matemos" luego a lo largo de la construcción del
proyecto.
No es cuestión de decir en forma liviana que "somos todos partners", sino que la idea es
poner reglas claras de trabajo para poder convivir durante la duración del proyecto. Desde el
momento de la redacción de un contrato, se debe pensar de qué forma se pueden alinear los
objetivos de las partes. Cómo hacer para reemplazar el concepto multa por el concepto “ success
fee” o premio por resultado. Cómo formalizar la alineación de obje tivos del proyecto, donde el
arquitecto y el constructor ganen más cuanto menos cueste la obra, cuando se reduzca el plazo y se
mejore la calidad.
Las regulaciones de los contratos deben fomentar el juego en que todas las partes ganan.
Donde se elija al constructor de la misma forma en que se elige al arquitecto: por sus antecedentes,
por su capacidad y porque pretende una ganancia razonable. Debe desaparecer el paradigma de que
lo que uno gana es pérdida para el otro.
En el marco de partnering, se puede crear el equipo de base de VE, que debe estar formado
por los proyectistas, los dueños, el contratista principal (el gerente de construcciones ) y algunos
subcontratistas importantes.
El arquitecto es el jugador más importante del equipo de partnering. Es el primer contrato
del dueño, quien interpretó su idea primitiva y con quien pasa el mayor tiempo. En el equipo de
partnering es quien clarifica los temas y ayuda a los demás a interpretar la filosofía del programa.
Será quien revise todos los documentos emitidos y quien deberá aglomerar toda la información.
Es clave que el dueño sea parte de la mesa de partnering pues es quien tiene la relación
contractual con todos y quien debe entender la importancia de la rápida toma de decisiones ante los
cambios de proyecto que surjan y entender qué partes del proyecto son críticas para el constructor.
El gerente de construcciones es quien debe coordinar las reuniones de partnering. Son
quienes luego deben hacer el duro trabajo de llevar a la práctica las decisiones de la mesa, por lo
que es quien debe llamar la atención sobre los puntos críticos que va encontrando, transmitiendo sus
preocupaciones, pidiendo y proponiendo soluciones.
Los asesores especialistas de las partes mecánicas y los subcontratistas participarán como
invitados a las reuniones de VE, donde encuentran a un equipo de base (cliente – arquitecto –
constructor) homogéneo, firme en sus convicciones y alineado en sus intereses, lo cual facilita el
entendimiento de la problemática de cada instalación específica. Si el subcontratista encuentra
fisuras en el equipo de base, ya tiene el camino liberado para iniciar la cadena de incumplimientos.
Es clave que cada parte individual pueda entender las personalidades de las otras partes,
para poder trabajar todos juntos. Como una descripción genérica se podría establecer que: El
arquitecto es el personaje excéntrico, orgulloso, técnico conocedor y pondrá el máximo esfuerzo en
defender su proyecto. Estará callado en las reuniones de partnering, temeroso de abrir una discusión
sobre el proyecto y no muy consciente de qué problemas puedan surgir durante el proceso de
construcción.
El constructor es el hombre frontal, orgulloso, que conoce el proyecto y está pensando todo
el tiempo en cómo obtener una ganancia extra. No le gustan las grandes reuniones y las ve como
pérdidas de tiempo. Siempre está involucrado en algún problema y tratará de transferirlo a las otras
partes. El buen constructor quiere desarrollar un producto de calidad, pero no se saldrá mucho de lo
implícitamente establecido en los pliegos.
El dueño es un personaje escéptico y angustiado. Quiere encontrar el acuerdo entre las otras
partes. Espera que el proyectista los proteja del constructor y que el constructor los proteja del
proyectista. Quiere que le construyan una joya por 10 centavos en el tiempo previsto y con la
calidad especificada.
Las tres partes tienen sus problemas y sus respuestas. El trabajo en un entorno de partnering
servirá para encontrar un terreno fértil donde se pueda completar un proyecto exitoso. El trabajo en
un ambiente de partnering tratará de revisar sistemáticamente todas las partes del proyecto, para
asegurar que el producto final cumpla especificaciones y requisitos del usuario, al costo más bajo
posible.
La revisión será continua, no estática, preguntando permanentemente por el status quo, sin
limitaciones para la creatividad. En la mesa se deben volcar las experiencias anteriores para que los
errores no se repitan, dando inicio efectivo a un trabajo de mejora continua.
5. Conclusiones
En el presente escrito se ha tratado de presentar la brecha existente entre los modelos de

gestión habituales en el gerenciamiento de proyectos y modelos utilizados en empresas exitosas de
distintas industrias. Es importante que cada uno de nosotros haga el ejercicio de medir la brecha
entre nuestros conocimientos y actitudes actuales, y los planteados como oportunidad de mejora
personal y empresarial.
Luego de leer detenidamente los puntos presentados sintéticamente en los párrafos
anteriores, se debe analizar, con un grado severo de autocrítica, cuáles son las técnicas aplicadas en
los proyectos en que usted participa y cuáles son los cambios que puede aplicar. El camino a
recorrer está dado por la capacitación, la lectura y el análisis de las variables que con forman hoy la
industria de la construcción.
La obsesión por la planificación previa de todas las actividades, el fomentar la iniciativa, el
seguimiento de los costos, los modelos de asociación, los trabajos en equipo y la honestidad
personal e intelectual son los pilares de una gestión de proyectos de alta calidad. Nuestra
experiencia nos indica la existencia de una clara correlación entre la aplicación de las mejores
prácticas de gestión empresarial con los resultados. Sólo a través de una gestión de alta calidad se
logrará construir con la calidad y productividad esperadas.
IMPROVING CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS
Report of the Strategic Forum for Construction Logistics Group
August 2005
The report ‘Accelerating Change’ published by the Strategic Forum for Construction
(SFfC) in September 2002, highlighted that ‘a considerable amount of waste is incurred
in the industry as a result of poor logistics’. The SFfC set up a task group, under the
chairmanship of Mike Eberlin of Castle Cement, with the support of the Construction
Products Association, to research what needed to be done and report on their findings.
This report records the group’s findings to date.
There is a lot of opportunity for change. Construction has been slower than other
industries to realise the benefits that the application of good logistics can provide. The
good news is that we don’t have to make large changes in order to obtain considerable
benefits. A lot can be achieved simply through more integrated working. For example,
engaging designers early on in the construction process allows them to consider how the
components they design might be delivered to site, when the component will be needed
and how it will be handled on site. This sort of pre-planning can lead to a substantial
reduction in unnecessary transport costs, time wasting, and damage on site. To quote
that much over used phrase, ‘it’s not rocket science’!
Change is possible on small as well as larger projects. There is potential for builders’
merchants to expand on their existing business by developing into consolidation centres.
Procurement clubs amongst housing associations (where smaller projects are grouped
together) are in a good position to improve on how they aggregate logistics across their
projects.
These and the other recommendations made by the SFfC Logistics Group have been
drawn together in an action plan that is being coordinated by Constructing Excellence in
the Built Environment. Progress on the action plan will be reviewed by the SFfC in
twelve months time. In the meantime we welcome your feedback on this report which
should be sent to Kate Dunne at kdunne@strategicforum.org.uk.
Peter Rogers
Chairman, Strategic Forum for Construction
2
Improving Construction Logistics
ANALYSIS
Background
The report ‘Accelerating Change’ published by the Strategic Forum for Construction in
September 2002, highlighted that ‘a considerable amount of waste is incurred in the
industry as a result of poor logistics’. The Forum subsequently identified addressing
logistics as one of its priorities and set up a Task Group under the chairmanship of Mike
Eberlin of Castle Cement to recommend what needed to be done. The list of the
members of the Group is at Appendix 1.
The Group did not want to start from scratch in addressing this subject and set out to
build on work already undertaken by the Construction Best Practice Programme in its
‘Factsheets on Logistics’, the research ‘Construction Logistics: Consolidation Centre’,
and the Constructing Excellence publication ‘Construction Logistics: Models for
Consolidation’. Against this background the Group agreed that its terms of reference
should be to;
Identify the key issues that need to be addressed to improve logistics in the construction
industry
Develop an Action Plan that highlights the steps that need to be undertaken by the
different parts of the industry in order to address these issues
Establish means by which the impact of the proposals in the Action Plan can be
measured and a resulting improvement in logistics demonstrated
Arising from this, the Group identified 4 key issues on which it chose to focus its
attention:
− Design
− Transport
− Stockholding
− More efficient use of on-site labour
The Group ‘brainstormed’ these four issues and its conclusions were tested at a
Workshop hosted by Constructing Excellence and attended by some 30 people from
across the construction industry.
3
What points to Logistics being poor in the Construction Industry?
There is plenty of non-quantified evidence that demonstrates the inadequacy of logistics

in the construction process, whilst in other industry sectors there are increasing
examples of how they are addressing logistics. This can be illustrated in a number of
ways.
• A high proportion of lorries in the construction industry move around the road
network either empty or with part-loads, whereas the retail sector and wider
manufacturing industry are continually working to consolidate delivery loads to
maximise vehicle fill, and reduce transport costs.
• Many lorries arriving at construction sites are having to wait to gain access or be
unloaded, whereas retail and other sectors designate time slots for supplier
deliveries. Late or early deliveries can be turned away and suppliers charged a
penalty.
• In construction, skilled craftsmen are often using their skills for less than 50% of their
time on site. Amongst the non-skilled tasks they are involved in are unloading lorries
and moving products around site. Other industrial and retail sectors use special
equipment to unload lorries and designated trained teams to deal with material
handling activities.
• Construction products are often stored on site for long periods of time and have to be
moved to other parts of the site when they are eventually needed. Retailers and
those in other industries are continually trying to reduce inventories and at least
ensure they are held in the most appropriate location. Effort goes into delivering the
right quantities at the right time.
• In construction, specialist contractors sometimes arrive on site when they are not
expected or when the job is not ready for them. Good manufacturers would ensure
they had the right information flows about work progress to ensure this never
happened.
• There continues to be much secondary working on site, whereas other industrial

sectors make every effort to get it right first time and avoid multiple handling.
• In construction there would appear to be a much higher proportion of damaged and

waste product removed from site than in other sectors.
• There is little formal training in logistics and yet there are a large number of tasks
that fall within a logistics umbrella. The chart at Appendix 2 has been prepared by
Wilson James to illustrate the point. In many other sectors, training in logistics skills
is given much greater priority and some employ those with degrees in the subject.
In summary, other industry sectors, especially manufacturing and retail, have made huge
advances in improving logistics, whereas the construction industry does not seem to be
taking advantage of these opportunities.
4
What are the consequences of poor Logistics?
Unnecessary cost in the system
All the evidence highlighted above points to there being additional cost in the system
that could be saved if the process operated more efficiently as a result of improved
logistics. Research by BSRIA in the 10 years since 2004 has shown that on average
10% of the working day of site operatives in all trades is lost due to waiting for materials,
or collecting materials, tools, and equipment. Given that site operations account for
about 30% of construction costs, this would suggest that this inefficiency alone is adding
about £3billion to the annual cost of construction.
Poor image of the construction industry
Lorries parked in an inconsiderate way outside construction sites whilst waiting to unload
does not give the image of an efficient industry. Disorganised sites with skilled craftsmen
being used for un-skilled jobs does not encourage quality people to join the industry.
Vehicles driving around empty or with part-loads does not convey the image of an
industry that has environmental concerns at the top of its agenda, nor does large
amounts of waste being removed from site, 85% of which goes to landfill. None of this
seems consistent with the growing attention that companies are expected to pay to
corporate social responsibility.
Poor quality construction
Working in a disorganised environment will inevitably make the production of quality

construction more difficult. Work interrupted whilst materials are sort from elsewhere on
site, or delayed whilst products are delivered, will have an adverse effect on quality.
Secondary working of products on site is also less likely to provide the same quality of
product that could be manufactured in a factory environment.
Increased project time
Most of those features of construction projects that point to poor logistics will add to the
time of construction projects. Delays whilst product is unloaded, subsequent movement
of products around site and secondary working of product all add unnecessary time that
would be eliminated in a well organised project.
Added risks to health and safety
Unnecessary products stored on site inevitably bring with them additional potential
hazards. Additional manual handling (either because product is in the wrong part of the
site, or because the right equipment is not available) adds to the health risks to those on
site. Secondary working of material also brings risks and research has shown that a
number of accidents on site occur as a result of workers tripping over discarded material
arising from secondary working.
5
What are the potential benefits from improving Logistics?
The fragmented nature of the construction industry and the lack of transparent costings
make it very difficult to estimate exactly what the potential savings would be if all these
issues were addressed. There is, however, a widespread belief that substantial savings
are achievable, and estimates range from those who believe costs could be reduced by
10%, to those who see savings of up to 30% being achieved.
One well documented case study is the Mid – City Place development in Central
London. On this project a strategy was developed to reduce multi-handling and repeated
moving of materials. This improved logistics led to some 35% less material waste than
benchmark sites, distribution of material with one less pair of hoists, and almost 100%
performance in materials being distributed in the right time and place. This all contributed
to the project being completed 11 weeks ahead of the planned programme, with a build
rate 60% ahead of the industry benchmark, building cost 80% of industry benchmark,
and 675,000 hours worked without a single reported accident.
In another case study undertaken as part of the CITB ConstructionSkills research

‘Accelerating change through Supply Chain Management’ a programme was developed
for delivering 10,000 kitchens.to a housing refurbishment programme on a ‘just in time’
basis on small trucks rather than in larger volumes with much bigger vehicles. This
resulted in a considerable reduction of waste, storage, and double handling of materials.
All those involved saw the considerable benefit arising from this, although measuring
these benefits has proved more difficult because of the lack of a ‘business as normal’
model against which to compare the improvements that have been achieved.
Case studies have a part to play in helping to demonstrate the benefits that arise from
improved logistics, but the particular circumstances of a project limit, in many people’s
eyes, the extent to which lessons are transferable. Nevertheless, it is hard to disagree
that reduction in transport movements, less money tied up in stock, less waste, and the
more efficient use of skilled craftsmen, will reduce the costs of projects, reduce
construction time, improve quality, reduce risks to health and safety of those who
operate on them, and generally improve the image of the industry. The challenge is to
produce the information that convinces all parts of the industry that things need to be
done differently in order to improve logistics.
What is preventing the industry from addressing Logistics?
A number of factors of the construction industry prevent it from effectively addressing

logistics problem.
• There is no real incentive to tackle this because it is difficult to identify who benefits.
Those who may be required to do things differently do not necessarily benefit
• Every construction job is seen as a ‘one-off’, with a team built up for a short period of
time and then disbanded afterwards. It is therefore difficult to engineer the system to
optimise logistics in the way that is possible in a manufacturing or retail environment.
6
• This is further hindered by the fragmented nature of the construction industry with
contractual arrangements that get in the way of a holistic approach to things like
logistics. Lack of direct employment also hinders this
• Advance planning and design of projects is generally inadequate, as are lead times
• There is a lack of transparency in costs throughout the construction process.

Decisions are often based on cash flow. The way costs are recorded does not help
identify the potential savings from improved logistics
• Unlike other industries, the information provided in construction is generally an

‘estimate’ rather than an exact science
• There is a general lack of understanding of the constraints of the supply chain.

There is also a lack of trust and confidence that the supply chain will actually deliver
when required. Can projects rely on a ‘just in time’ delivery of products?
• Clients (and others) believe that project cost already allows for appropriate resources
to be committed to logistics on the project
The Action Plan which follows attempts to address many of these.
ACTION PLAN
Support for other initiatives that will contribute towards improving logistics.
Development of Integrated Project Teams and Supply Chains
One of the recurring themes in the Group’s discussion is that logistics will not be
adequately addressed until the construction industry works in a more integrated way,
with all parts of the supply chain, including specialist contractors and key manufacturers /
suppliers, involved at the outset of projects. The development of integrated teams and
supply chains is already a key priority for the Strategic Forum, with a target that 50% of
projects by value are undertaken in an integrated way by the end of 2007. In terms of
improving logistics, a more integrated approach will help break down the barriers that the
current contractual relationships impose and help encourage greater cost transparency
on projects. The Group is therefore keen to see this integrated approach to projects
developed as quickly as possible and welcomes the recent National Audit Office Report
‘Improving Public Services through better construction’ which highlights the benefits to
be gained from this.
Off – site manufacture and Modern Methods of Construction
One of the reasons why logistics is so important in construction is the fragmented nature
of the industry and the wide range of products and systems that need to be put together,
invariably in an unpredictable outside environment. The increasing attention that is being
given to off-site manufacture and modern methods of construction is helping to reduce
the number of individual products that need to be delivered to, and assembled on site.
7
Whilst in some respects this is helping to make the logistics on a project easier, the
importance of good logistics is even greater if the benefits that these new systems have
to offer in terms of productivity on site are to be achieved. The Group is therefore keen to
see that organisations such as BuildoffSite and the Housing Forum, which are
highlighting the benefits of off-site manufacture and modern methods of construction,
ensure proper attention is given to logistics on the projects where such systems are
used.
Programme for improving logistics
No one part of the construction industry can deliver improved logistics on its own. The
benefits will come from the different parts of the industry inter-acting in a different way –
planning together, sharing information, and exposing the real cost of activities in a way
that is currently not typical. In order to bring about this change, the Group has identified
the contribution that it wants to see each part of the industry make, not because it wants
to see the different parts of the industry working in isolation, but because it is the easier
way to hold each sector responsible for bringing about change.
1. Clients
Clients have every reason to expect the supply side to deliver their projects efficiently
and to ensure that proper attention is given to logistics so that the benefits referred to
earlier are delivered. Clients can help in this by making clear to those they appoint that
they expect them to prepare a Logistics Plan at an early stage in their projects, and that
all the key players in the supply chain have signed up to this Plan.
The Group would, therefore, like to see:

• The Client’s Charter refer to the expectation that a Logistics Plan is prepared at an
early stage in every project
• A Best Practice Guide prepared to help clients understand what they can expect
from the supply side on logistics
2. Design Professionals
Design Professionals need to be more aware of the part they play in ensuring good
logistics, particularly at the scheme design stage. Logistics will be greatly helped if the
design professionals draw up a Process Map at an early stage in the design. In addition
as part of the Logistics Plan for the project, a Bill of Materials should be prepared. This
should look at, for example, the flow of materials needed on a project and ways of
minimising stockholding. Which of the professional members of the supply chain should
be responsible for this, needs to be discussed, but the quantity surveyors with their
background in measurement and costing might have the appropriate skills for this;
alternatively it could require the input of logistics specialists. Manufacturers, suppliers
and distributors clearly need to make an input to this Plan.
The various professional bodies responsible for the design professions in the
construction industry – RIBA, ICE, IStruct E, and CIBSE on design issues, and RICS on
8
measurement and costing– are in the best position to highlight the importance of
logistics to their current membership as well as in the training of those seeking to join the
profession. In the short term this can be achieved through awareness guidance as part
of continuing professional development. In the medium term, the importance of logistics

needs to feature in the initial education and training of those preparing for a career in
one of the construction professions.

• Design professionals prepare a Process Map for each project as part of the Scheme
Design
• The professional institutions representing the design professions develop advice and
offer briefing to members on the role they have to play in project logistics
• The professional team needs to prepare a Bill of Materials as part of the Logistics
Plan
• The professional institutions consider ways in which the role of their profession in
project logistics can be incorporated in initial education and training.
3. Main Contractors and specialist contractors
Many see the construction manager as the key player in co-ordinating the logistics on a
construction project, but the conclusions reached earlier suggest this is not a function
that is being carried out as effectively as it should be across the construction industry. As
a result, logistics specialists are being involved in some of the major projects.
Irrespective of who carries it out, the responsibility for project logistics must rest with the
main contractors, and it is essential they drew up a Logistics Plan in consultation with the
rest of the supply chain at the outset of a project. The Bill of Materials will be an
important input to this and the specialist contractors should each prepare that sub-set of
the Logistics Plan relevant to their specialist input including how they will be making
optimum use of the skilled labour on site.
Those responsible for the logistics on a project must have the right skills to perform the
function and CITB Construction Skills is asked to recommend how logistics skills can be
developed in the industry.
• Main contractors prepare a Logistics Plan in consultation with the rest of the Supply
Chain at the outset of each project. This Plan should include the input to the project
from the specialist contractors and the key manufacturers and suppliers.
• CITB Construction Skills review the need for logistics skills in the industry and
recommend what needs to be done to address this.
4. Manufacturers, Suppliers, and Distributors
A key part of logistics for a construction project is to ensure that the products and
materials arrive on site at the time and in the quantities that are required. This does not
9
just depend on the efficiency of the supply network, but it also relies on the pre-planning
of those on the construction site, as well as the quality of the communication between
those planning the project and those supplying the products and materials.
Manufacturers and suppliers can make a significant contribution to the efficiency of the
logistics on a project if they are involved early enough in the process and, in particular, if
they can make an input to the Logistics Plan through the preparation of the Bill of
Materials.
On the transport side, there may be an opportunity to look at ways of developing best
practice and learning from other industries through the Department for Transport’s
Sustainable Distribution .programme. This has not so far given any attention to
construction and it is hoped that the Department can be persuaded to remedy this.
As part of its wish to see greater transparency of cost in the construction process, the
Group would like to see manufacturers and suppliers reflect the true cost of distribution
in their pricing policies.
The development of the Consolidation Centre at Heathrow Airport was an innovative

approach to the particular challenges faced by working in that kind of environment. For a
variety of reasons, this particular approach is not applicable throughout the industry, but
there may be lessons for the way products are supplied to other large projects.
Manufacturers and suppliers are encouraged to see what these lessons might be.
• The Department for Transport’s Sustainable Distribution programme include work on

transport in the construction industry.
• Key manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors input to the Bill of Materials being
prepared as part of the Logistics Plan for each project
• Manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors reflect the cost of distribution in their
pricing policies
• Manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors work with contractors to see how lessons
from the Consolidation Centre approach might be transferred to other significant
construction projects and programmes
5. Information Technology
The Group did not believe that the industry was using electronic communications as
effectively as other industries were to help in improving logistics throughout the supply
chain. In particular, the industry was not utilising bar coding for product ordering, or E-
tagging for tracing products throughout the process, to the extent that seemed
appropriate. A case study was being developed as part of a CITB ConstructionSkills
research project in order to trial bar coding on the panes of glass required on a major
project. Unfortunately, the case study could not be completed because of the difficulty of
co-ordinating those parts of supply chain involved in this – manufacturers, distributors,
main contractors and specialist contractors. This is symptomatic of many of the
difficulties in the industry, and the Group would, therefore, like to see further case
studies developed to address these difficulties and to demonstrate the benefit that bar
coding has to offer.
10
In the time available to the Group, they were not able to look into the issue of information
technology to the extent they would have liked. They are convinced, however, that there
is much the industry could do to take advantage of these new technologies in a way that
will make a significant input to improving logistics. This needs much more consideration
and it is felt that some of the DTI programmes focusing on wider use of IT should be able
to help in this.
• The industry work with DTI to focus part of that Department’s work on information
technology towards the way this can be used to help improve logistics in the
construction industry.
• As part of this programme, two case studies developed to show the potential benefits
of bar coding. These case studies should each focus on a specific product being
used on a major project.
6. Case Studies
Members of the Group and those who attended the workshop were keen to see case
studies developed to help demonstrate the benefits that can arise from improved
logistics. Previous case studies such as Mid – City Place and the Heathrow
Consolidation Centre have helped to demonstrate what can be achieved when specific
attention is paid to logistics, and a suggested case study on the wider potential for bar
coding is put forward in an earlier section of this Action Plan.
What the Group would, therefore, like to see is:
• The development of a ‘model project’ to help understand the information flows that
are needed to create an efficient Logistics Plan and address the existing
shortcomings on logistics in construction projects..
• Some sector / product specific case studies showing how the logistics surrounding
the supply of certain products can be improved. This would include, for example,
establishing what information is needed at the outset of projects to allow
manufacturers to organise better the supply of their products. The mechanical and
engineering sector was one where the Group felt that such a case study might be
particularly appropriate.
7. Learning from other industries.
Earlier in the report, comparison was made between the construction industry and the
progress that has been made towards improving logistics in other industry sectors. There
is clearly much that construction can learn from the way other industries approach
logistics and it is hoped that in taking forward various of the proposals identified earlier,
those responsible will, where appropriate, seek to tap into the experience of other
industries on these issues. One particular project funded by the EPSRC is being
undertaken at Cardiff Business School and is looking at ‘Mass, Customised, and
Collaborative Logistics’. The sectors being studied as part of this project are steel, retail,
11
and construction. The researchers see a common interest in many of the messages
emerging from this work for the Strategic Forum and would like to see how they can help
take this forward.
Taking the Action Plan forward
A summary of these actions with an indication as to who should be responsible for taking
them forward is attached at Appendix 3. To ensure progress is monitored, there needs to
be a single point of responsibility for co-ordinating the follow up to this report and the
Group recommends that this should be taken on by Constructing Excellence in the Built
Environment with the appropriate input from each member of the Strategic Forum. A
report should then be presented to the Strategic Forum in the spring of 2006 on the
progress that has been made in taking forward the Action Plan.
12
Appendix 1 Members of the Strategic Forum Logistics Task Force
Chairman Mike Eberlin Castle Cement
Members Rick Ballard The Logistics Business

John Brooks MACE
John Connaughton Davis Langdon Consultancy
Chris Ctori BAA
Paul Fenlon NHS Estates
John Hobson Management of Change
Phil Holden Pascall and Watson
Mike Holley Excel
Gary Sullivan Wilson James
Michael Ankers Construction Products Association
Secretary Kate Dunne Strategic Forum for Construction
The Group also received support from Brian Moone and Ian Pannell when they were part
of the Constructing Excellence team
13
Appendix 2
Required Certification for Logistics Road Forklift Safe

Closures Routes
KEY
Certified Training
Skip & Slinging MEWPs Required
Compactor Loads Licences Crane Fencing Supervisory/
Scheduling Winches Management
No Formal Training
Sweeping Material Zips Ups Required
Handling Crane Hoist Gates (but experience
Up
Banksmen Drivers Essential)
Waste Unloading Scaffold Hoarding Abrasive

Crane Hoists
Management Trucks Coordination Wheels,
Power Tools
Logistics
Welfare
Supply Protection Rain Traffic Cleaning
Health & Chain
Security of Holes Water Control
Safety Coordination
Removal
Office
Cleaning
Vehicle
Vehicle Signage Wheel Cones
Fire Hot Works Wash
Schedulin
Scheduling Barriers
Marshal Permits
g Canteen
Cleaning
Site Planning Good Road Banking
First Aid Permits, What goes
Neighbour /Pavement Vehicles
Certificates, where Canteen
Cranes/Hoist Policy Cleaning
F91s etc. Operation
s
Occupational KPI’s & Third Environmental Signing &
Health Impact Guarding Temporary
Admin Party Management
Roadworks Accommodation
Liaison
14
Appendix 3
SUMMARY OF ACTION PLAN
Action Directed to Action Required Lead Organisation (s)
Clients • Client’s Charter to refer to the expectation that a Logistics Construction Client’s Group
Plan is prepared at an early stage in every project
• Best Practice Guide to be prepared to help clients understand Construction Client’s Group in co-operation with
what they can expect from the supply side on logistics other umbrella bodies on Strategic Form
Design Professionals • Design professionals to prepare a Process Map for each

project as part of the Scheme Design
• Professional institutions representing the design professions CIC in Partnership with RIBA, ICE,
to develop advice and offer briefing to members on the role IStructE, and CIBSE
they have to play in project logistics
• Professional institutions to consider ways in which the role of

their profession in project logistics can be incorporated in
initial education and training.
• Professional team prepare a Bill of Materials as part of the

logistics plan.
Main Contractors and • Main contractors to prepare a Logistics Plan in consultation Construction Confederation in co-operation with
Specialist Contractors with the rest of the Supply Chain, at the outset of each Construction Products Association, National
project. Specialist Contractors Council and Specialist
Engineering Contractors Group
• CITB ConstructionSkills to review the need for logistics skills CITB ConstructionSkills in co-operation with
in the industry and recommend what needs to be done to Summit Skills and with support of Construction
address this. Confederation, NSCC and SEC Group
15
Manufacturers and • Department for Transport’s Sustainable Distribution Department for Transport
Suppliers programme to include work on transport in the construction
industry.
• Key manufacturers and suppliers to input to a Bill of Materials Construction Products Association
as part of the Logistics Plan for each project
• Manufacturers, suppliers and distributors to reflect the cost of Construction Products Association
distribution in their pricing policies
• Manufacturers, suppliers and distributors to work with Construction Products Association together with
contractors to see how lessons from the Consolidation Centre Construction Confederation, NSCC and SEC
approach might be transferred to other significant construction Group
projects and programmes
Whole Industry
– Information • The industry work with DTI to focus part of that Department’s Constructing Excellence and DTI with support
Technology work on information technology towards the way this can be from other Strategic Forum umbrella bodies.
used to help improve logistics in the construction industry.
• As part of this programme two case studies developed to Constructing Products Association, DTI and
show the potential benefits of bar coding. These case studies Construction Excellence with support from other
should each focus on a specific product being used on a Strategic Forum umbrella bodies
major project.
– Case Studies • The development of a ‘model project’ to help understand the Construction Excellence with support from other
information flows that are needed to create an efficient Strategic Forum umbrella bodies and possible
Logistics Plan and address the existing shortcomings on event sponsorship from one of the industry
logistics. journals.
• Sector / product specific case studies showing how the Construction Products Association /
logistics surrounding the supply of certain products can be manufacturing sector trade associations in
improved. partnership with Construction Confederation and
specialist contractor associations
– Learning from • The industry work with Cardiff Business School as part of their Constructing Excellence with support from other
other industries ‘Mass, Customised, and Collaborative Logistics’ Project to see umbrella bodies on Strategic Forum
what lessons can be learnt from other industries
16
17
Industrialization of Construction – a Lean
Modular Approach
Anders Björnfot, M. Sc
and
Lars Stehn, Ph. D
Luleå University of Technology

Research method
The conventional D&B construction process is used as base of discussions
Program Schematic Design Production

phase design development phase
Modularity Lean construction Buildability
Summary
Industrialisation Exploration Case

framework study
Industrialisation principles
• Modularity is both a process and product discipline offering a wide

variety of advantages in the whole construction process. Modularity
is applied at the product level and realised in design development
and production.
• Lean construction is a process management discipline offering

management in the whole construction process, aimed at
streamlined production.
• Buildability is a process and product based discipline. In contrary

to modularity; buildability is more of a goal than a means for
product and process efficiency.
Summary - Industrialisation framework
Process management
Lean Construction
Top → Down
Bottom → Up
Buildability
Modularity
Product management
Framework Application?
Case study – assembly process
Sequential assembly process
• 4 weeks until finished structural assembly

• General assembly activities; sub-assembly, placement, and
final assembly
• Resources used; up to a 3 men workforce, 2 tower-cranes,
and 2 sky-lifts
Modularity simulations
What is the usefulness of thinking in modularity during assembly?
“Thinking” modularity offers;

• Increased self-control
• Improved quality
Product buildability
• Opportunity for out-sourcing
Process buildability
• Guidance for pre-assembly
Lean thinking
• Guidance for prefabrication
• Reallocation of resources
Discussion and conclusions
• Modularity has been one of the driving forces in the evolution of the
manufacturing industry
• In construction, the product is usually not unique, the setting is!
• Modularity confers both product and process buildability
• Modularity aids in the implementation of lean thinking in construction
• The Swedish construction industry is not mature enough to handle
the direct implementation of lean practices as is…
• …the construction industry should initially focus on product modularity
– a “bottom-up” product focused view…
THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION CONTROL
by
HERMAN GLENN BALLARD
A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Engineering
of The University of Birmingham
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
School of Civil Engineering

Faculty of Engineering
The University of Birmingham
May 2000
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many individuals and companies contributed to this research. To name a few:
q David Seymour, my thesis advisor
q Anne Seymour, for giving me a home in Birmingham
q David Hoare and Peter Deasley, thesis examiners
q Greg Howell, business partner and co-thinker
q Lauri Koskela, for his example and inspiration
q Todd Zabelle and the Pacific Contracting team for their willingness to try new
ideas
q Leo Linbeck III, Ed Beck and Kathy Jones of Linbeck Construction for sharing
opportunity and data (3 of the 5 cases were Linbeck projects)
q Norm Barnes and the Barnes Construction team for access to projects
q Iris Tommelein, external thesis advisor and colleague at UC Berkeley
q Jeanne Ballard, my wife, for putting up with me, especially my absences from
home
ABSTRACT
Project controls have traditionally been focused on after-the-fact detection of variances.

This thesis proposes a control system, the Last Planner system, that causes the
realization of plans, and thus supplements project management's concern for management
of contracts with the management of production.
The Last Planner system has previously been successively applied by firms with direct
responsibility for production management; e.g., speciality contractors. This thesis
extends system application to those coordinating specialists, both in design and
construction, through a series of case studies, one of which also explores the limits on
unilateral implementation by specialists.
In addition to the extended application, two questions drive this research. The first
question is 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation
of the Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the
70% PPC level? Previous research revealed substantial improvement in productivity for
those who improved plan reliability to the 70% level, consequently there is reason to
hope for further improvement, possibly in all performance dimensions, especially with
application across an entire project rather than limited to individual speciality firms. That
question is explored in three case studies, the last of which achieves the 90% target.
The second research question is 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to
increase plan reliability during design processes1? That question is explored in an
extensive case study, which significantly contributes to understanding the design process
from the perspective of active control, but unfortunately does not fully answer the
question, primarily because the project was aborted prior to start of construction.
However, it is argued that the Last Planner system is especially appropriate for design
production control because of the value-generating nature of design, which renders
ineffective traditional techniques such as detailed front end planning and control through
after-the-fact detection of variances.
1
In this thesis, the term “design” is used to designate both design and engineering
activities, not shaping space to aesthetic criteria.
Issues for future research are proposed, including root cause analysis of plan failures
and quantification of the benefits of increased plan reliability for both design and
construction processes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Title Page
Acknowledgements
Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1.0 Introduction 1-1

1.1 Conceptual Framework 1-1
1.2 Assumptions 1-3
1.3 Contribution to Knowledge 1-5
1.4 The Author's Role in the Research
1-5
1.5 Structure of the Dissertation 1-8
2.0 Critique of Production Control 2-1

2.1 What is Production Control? 2-1
2.1.1 The Meaning of “Production” 2-1
2.1.2 The Meaning of “Control” 2-3
2.2 Project Management 2-5
2.2.1 The Project Management Body of Knowledge 2-5
2.2.2 Critique of the Traditional Project Control Model 2-7
2.3 Previous Application of Production Control Concepts to the AEC Industry 2-12
2.3.1 Melles and Wamelink 2-12
2.3.2 Koskela 2-14
2.4 Criteria for a Production Control System 2-15
3.0 Description and History of the Last Planner System of Production Control 3-1
3.1 Hierarchical Structure 3-1
3.2 Should-Can-Will-Did 3-1
3.3 Production Unit Control 3-3
3.4 Work Flow Control 3-5
3.4.1 Constraints Analysis 3-9
3.4.2 Pulling 3-11
3.4.3 Matching Load and Capacity 3-14
3.4.4 The Last Planner System As a Whole 3-15
3.5 A Brief History of the Last Planner System of Production Control 3-16
3.6 Previous Applications of the Last Planner System to Design 3-21
3.7 Evaluation of Last Planner against Criteria for Production Control Systems 3-24
3.8 Research Questions: 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and 3-25
improved implementation of the Last Planner system of production
control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan Complete?
2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability
during design processes?
4.0 Research Methodology 4-1

4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.1.1 Engineering Management as a Field of Study 4-1
4.1.2 Competing Engineering Management Paradigms 4-4
4.2 Research Design 4-6
4.2.1 Research Question 4-6
4.2.2 Research Strategies 4-8
4.3 Research Methods 4-9
4.3.1 Data Collection 4-9
4.3.2 Data Analysis and Evaluation 4-10
4.3.3 Case Studies 4-12
5.0 Case One: CCSR Project 5-1

5.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation 5-1
5.2 PPC and Reasons 5-2
5.3 Observations 5-10
5.4 Learnings 5-11
6.0 Case Two: Next Stage 6-1

6.2 Data 6-2
6.2.1 PPC and Reasons 6-2
6.2.2 Observations 6-5
6.2.3 Feedback from participants 6-5
6.3 The Nature of the Design Process and Implications for Process Control 6-8
6.4 Evaluation of Last Planner Implementation 6-10
6.5 Learnings 6-12
7.0 Case Three: Pacific Contracting 7-1

7.4 Learnings 7-8
8.0 Case Four: Old Chemistry Building Renovation 8-1

8.4 Learnings 8-5
9.0 Case Five: Zeneca 9-1
9.3 Constraint Analysis and Make Ready 9-3
9.5 Learnings 9-6
10.0 Conclusions 10-1

10.1 Summary of Case Study Results 10-1
10.2 Research Question: What can be done by way of tools provided and 10-2
control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan
Complete?
10.3 Research Question: How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to 10-3
increase plan reliability during design processes?
10.4 Directions for Future Research 10-4
10.5 Conclusions 10-9
Glossary of Terms G-1
List of References R-1
Bibliography Biblio-1
Appendix A: Next Stage Kickoff Meeting A-1
Appendix B: Next StageTeleconferences B-1
Appendix C: Next Stage Action Items Log C-1
Appendix D: Next Stage Issues Log D-1
Appendix E: Next Stage Decisions Log E-1

LIST OF FIGURES
Page
3.1 The formation of assignments in the Last Planner System 3-2
3.2 Lookahead Process 3-6
3.3 Make Ready by Screening and Pulling 3-11
3.4 A Traditional (Push) Planning System 3-13
3.5 Last Planner-A Pull System 3-14
3.6 The Last Planner System 3-16
3.7 PPC (Nokia Project) 3-23
3.8 Participant Survey (Nokia Project) 3-23
5.1 CCSR-Weekly PPC 5-5
5.2 CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion 5-6
5.3 CCSR-PPC without rain 5-6
6.1 Next Stage-PPC 6-4
7.1 Pacific Contracting-PPC 7-2
7.2 Pacific Contracting-Reasons 7-7
8.1 Old Chemistry Building-PPC 8-3
8.2 Old Chemistry Building-Reasons for Noncompletions 8-4
9.1 Zeneca-PPC 9-2
9.2 Zeneca-Reasons 9-2
10.1 Activity Definition Model 10-4
10.2 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Directives 10-6
10.3 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Prerequisites 10-7
10.4 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Resources 10-8
10.5 Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Process 10-9
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1.1 Conversion/Flow/Value 1-1
3.1 Functions of the Lookahead Process 3-7
3.2 Construction Lookahead Schedule 3-9
3.3 Engineering Lookahead Schedule 3-10
3.4 Constraints Analysis 3-12
5.1 CCSR-Weekly Planning Cycle 5-3
5.2 CCSR-Constraints Analysis Form 5-4
5.3 CCSR-PPC and Reasons Data 5-5
5.4 CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion (detailed and categorized) 5-7
6.1 Next Stage-Reasons for Noncompletion 6-2
6.2 Next Stage-PPC Data 6-3
6.3 Next Stage-Reasons 6-5
7.1 Pacific Contracting-PPC Data and Reasons 7-3
8.1 Old Chemistry Building-PPC Data 8-3
9.1 Zeneca-Constraint Analysis Form 9-5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.0 Conceptual Framework
Production processes can be conceived in at least three different ways: 1) as a process of
converting inputs to outputs, 2) as a flow of materials and information through time and
space, and 3) as a process for generating value for customers. All three conceptions are
appropriate and necessary. However, the conversion model has been dominant in the
AEC (architectural/engineering/construction) industry until very recently (Koskela and
Huovila, 1997).
Table 1.1
Conversion View Flow View Value Generation
the flows of information a value creating

a series of & resources, which
Nature of activities which process which
release work: composed defines and
Construction convert inputs of conversion,
to outputs. meets customer
inspection, moving and requirements.
waiting.
Hierarchical Decomposition at
decomposition of joints. Elimination of Elimination of value
Main
Principles activities; control and waste (unnecessary loss - the gap
optimization by activities), time between achieved
and possible value.
activity. reduction.
Work breakdown
Team approach, rapid
structure, critical path Development and testing
reduction of
method. Planning of ends against means to
Methods uncertainty, shielding,
concerned with timing determine requirements.
& balancing, decoupling.
start and responsibility Planning concerned with
Practices Planning concerned
for activities through work structure, process
with timing, quality and
contracting or and participation.
release of work.
assigning.
Taking care Taking care that Taking care that

Practical to do the unnecessary customer
Contribution necessary is done as little requirements are
met in the best
things. as possible.
possible manner.
.
Conversion/Flow/Value2
Ballard 1-1 Last Planner

The design and construction of AEC facilities (buildings, process plants, airport
terminals, highways, etc.) poses difficult management problems to which the models and
techniques based on the conversion view have proven inadequate. Tradeoffs between
competing design criteria must be made throughout the design process, often with
incomplete information and under intense budget and schedule pressure. Increasingly,
projects are subject to uncertainty because of the pace of technological change and the
rapid shifting of market opportunities and competitor actions.
Production management concepts and techniques based on the conversion model have
not proven capable of solving these difficult problems. The heart of the conversion model
is the assumption that the work to be done can be divided into parts and managed as if
those parts were independent one from another. Management techniques such as work
breakdown structures and earned value analysis belong to this conversion model. Work
breakdown structures are driven by scoping and budget concerns and have the objectives
of insuring that all the work scope is included in one of the parts, insuring that no work
scopes overlap, and allocating costs to each part such that the rollup yields the total for
the project. This division into parts is necessary in order to allocate responsibility to
internal or external work centers, which can subsequently be controlled against scope,
budget, and schedule commitments.
This is fundamentally a contracting mentality, which facilitates the management of
contracts rather than the management of production or work flow. Production
management is the ‘local’ responsibility of those to whom the various parts are assigned
or contracted. If everyone meets their contractual obligations, the project performs
successfully. Unfortunately, this approach is the opposite of robust. When something
goes wrong, as it very often does, the entire structure is prone to collapse.

If a management philosophy and tools are needed that fully integrate the conversion,
flow, and value models, we might consider the product development processes employed
by firms designing and manufacturing consumer products (automobiles, printers,
toasters, etc.). Such processes have developed potentially useful concepts especially in
the area of value; identification of customer needs and translation into engineering
specifications (Ulrich and Eppinger 1993). Product development processes also are
struggling with other issues relevant to the design of AEC facilities, including design
decomposition, organizational means for integration, etc. (Hayes, et al, 1988; Eppinger,
et al, 1990; Gebala and Eppinger, 1991).
As a contribution to the integration of all three models, this thesis applies the flow
model to managing the design and construction of AEC facilities. Conceptualizing the
design and construction process as a flow of information and materials lends itself to
reducing waste by minimizing time information or materials spend waiting to be used,
time spent inspecting information or materials for conformance to requirements, time
spent reworking information or materials to achieve conformance, and time spent moving
information or materials from one specialist to the next. Further, conceptualizing the
design and construction process as a flow of information and materials allows
coordination of interdependent flows and the integration of design with supply and site
construction.
1.2 Assumptions
Fundamental assumptions underlying this research include the following:

q Current construction industry production management thinking and practice is
dominated by the conversion model, consequently value generation and flow
management concepts and techniques are underdeveloped.
q To be consistent with all three models, conversion, flow, and value, production
management should be conceived as having the purpose of creating customer value
while minimizing waste in time and cost. “Customer value” is understood to include
not only the fitness for use of the facility considered with regard to functionality, but
also with regard to all other criteria to which the customer attaches value, e.g.,
project delivery within a time and for a cost that meets the customer’s market and
financial needs.
q "Production" is understood to include both designing and making. The historical
development of production theory in manufacturing has erroneously suggested that
production is entirely concerned with 'making'.3
q Production management is conceived to consist of criteria determination and work
structuring in the ‘planning’ phase, and to consist of work flow control and
production unit control in the ‘execution’ or ‘control’ phase.
This thesis treats only control functions, not planning functions. It does not treat the very
first and fundamental production management activity; i.e., the determination of
customer needs and their translation into design criteria. Criteria determination belongs
to the value generation view. This thesis treats only the flow view. Similarly, work
structuring activities such as identification, sequencing, and scheduling tasks are also not
3
There may be differences between the U.S. and U.K. in the use of these terms. Hence
the effort to be precise. For the most part, the theory of producing artifacts has emerged
from efforts to better manage factories. More recently, in some instances, the term
"manufacturing" has acquired greater scope than merely factory production.

treated here. The scope of this thesis is the control functions of production unit control
and work flow control.
1.3 Contribution to Knowledge
This dissertation proposes to make the following contributions to knowledge:
q Adapted from manufacturing4, a system for production control, the Last Planner
system, is presented that exemplifies the concept of control as causing events to
conform to plan, as distinct from the traditional conception of project control in
terms of after-the-fact variance detection.
q Appropriate application of the production control system is shown to improve work
flow reliability, which promises substantial benefits in project cost and duration
reduction.
q Improvements to the Last Planner system of production control are developed and
tested in a series of case studies, resulting in new concepts and techniques.
Project controls in the AEC industry have focused on detecting variances from project
objectives for cost and schedule, and have not directly dealt with the management of
production. The Last Planner system of production control has proven an effective tool
for improving the productivity of the production units that implement its procedures and
techniques (Ballard and Howell, 1997). This dissertation shifts the focus from the
productivity of the immediate production unit to the reliability of work flow between
production units, and also extends application of the system to design.
1.4 The Author's Role in the Research
4
I.e., from the models and theories developed in industrial engineering

The Last Planner system has been in development by the author since 1992. Several
papers have previously been published by this author on the subject, the first of them in
1993 (Ballard, 1993) at the founding conference of the International Group for Lean
Construction. Last Planner research began with a focus on improving the quality of
assignments in weekly work plans (Koch Refinery Mid-Plants Project, 1993-45), added a
lookahead process to shape and control work flow (PARC, 19956; DMOS-6, 19967),
and eventually was extended from construction to design (Nokia8 and Hewlett-Packard9,
1996). During that development, the objective shifted from improving productivity to
improving the reliability of work flow. This resulted from a change in conceptual
framework. The initial framework came from the quality management and productivity
improvement initiatives that dominated construction industry performance improvement
efforts in the 1980s. The shift to work flow reliability reflected the author's increasing
awareness of the revolution in manufacturing inspired by the Toyota Production System
and eventually labeled "lean production", and also contact with the thinking of Lauri
Koskela regarding production theory and its application to the construction industry.
A key metric of the Last Planner system is the percentage of assignments completed
(PPC), which is clearly a defect rate and a product of the quality management mentality.
Given the objective of improving productivity, measurements were made of the
relationship between the defect rate of a crew, its PPC, and the productivity of that crew.
Not surprisingly, such measurements revealed a positive correlation10. However, the
5
Ballard and Howell, 1997
6
Ballard, Howell, and Casten (1996)
7
Ballard and Howell, 1997
8
Koskela, Ballard, and Tanhuanpaa (1997)
9
Miles (1998)
10
For examples, see the references footnoted previously.

activity focus characteristic of the productivity improvement 'mind' concealed the
importance of that crew's PPC for the productivity of the crews that followed it and built
upon its work product. Even the introduction of a lookahead process was motivated
initially by the observation that simply shielding a crew from poor assignments was
insufficient to optimize crew productivity. To do so required matching load and capacity,
both of which required managing load or work flow. The more powerful and
fundamental opportunity to coordinate action among multiple crews was hidden by the
dominance of what Koskela has called the "conversion model" and its exclusive focus on
the activity as the unit of control rather than work flow.
Prior to the founding of the Lean Construction Institute (LCI) in August of 199711,
the Last Planner system had evolved to roughly its current form, with a clear conceptual
basis in production theory a la Koskela and an explicit and self-conscious objective of
managing work flow. What remained to be done was to learn how to improve work flow
reliability above the 35%-65% range commonly discovered up to that time. One purpose
of this dissertation is to describe what was done to improve work flow reliability,
measured by PPC, and the results achieved. That improving work flow reliability is
beneficial hardly requires argument. However, identifying and quantifying the specific
benefits will be a matter for future research. The second purpose of this research is to
explore applicability of the Last Planner system to design.
11
The Lean Construction Institute was founded in August of 1997 as a partnership
between Gregory A. Howell and Glenn Ballard, dedicated to research, training and
consulting in construction industry production management. Subsequently, Iris
Tommelein and Todd Zabelle have become partners in the enterprise, along with Mark
Reynolds, Managing Director of Lean Construction International, based in London. All
the case studies reported in this thesis were undertaken as research projects for LCI, of
which this author is Research Director. All case studies were carried out under the

1.4 Structure of the Dissertation
Traditional project control theory and practice is described and critiqued in Chapter
Two. The Last Planner System of Production Control is presented in Chapter Three as
satisfying the requirements revealed by the critique. Chapter Four describes the research
methodology used in the dissertation and is followed by Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, each
devoted to a case study. Conclusions from the case studies are reported in Chapter 10,
followed by a glossary of terms, a list of references, a bibliography, and an appendix
consisting of documents from the design case, Next Stage.
direction of this author, who also was the primary participant in project events and the
primary collector of case study data.

CHAPTER TWO: CRITIQUE OF PRODUCTION
CONTROL
2.1 What is Production Control?
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a critique of production control theory and
practice. But first it is necessary to clarify what is meant by “production control”.
2.1.1 The Meaning of “Production”
Production has been an explicit topic of study primarily in industrial engineering, which
has dealt almost entirely with one type of production; namely, manufacturing (in the
sense of 'making'), with only occasional forays into construction, plant maintenance,
building maintenance, agriculture, forestry, mining, fishing, etc. Design and engineering
have infrequently been conceived as production processes; the focus almost entirely
being placed on making things rather than designing them.
Although the meaning of the term at its most universal is synonymous with “making”,
“manufacturing” is most commonly12 used to denote the making of many copies from a
single design, and consequently is primarily focused on products for a mass market, most
of those products being moveable from the place manufactured to the place of use. There
are exceptions to the products being moveable, although still copies from a single design;
e.g., ships and airplanes. Within the world of construction, manufacturing in this sense is
approached mostly closely by 'manufactured housing'.
12
Exceptions occur with thinkers and writings regarding product development, which by
its nature must integrate designing and making, at least in the sense of making
prototypes.

Various types of making have been proposed, among them ‘assembly’, the joining of
parts into a whole, as distinct from ‘fabricating’, the shaping of materials. For example,
construction is often categorized as a type of ‘fixed position manufacturing’ (Schmenner,
1993), along with shipbuilding and airplane assembly. In all these instances of assembly,
the assembled product eventually becomes too large to be moved through assembly
stations, so the stations (work crews) must be moved through them, adding additional
components and subassemblies until the artifact (building, bridge, tunnel, plant, house,
highway, etc) is completed.
Many publications exist on the topic of production management in manufacturing,
the larger part of which adopt the perspective of the industrial or production engineer
(Bertrand et al, 1990; Hopp and Spearman, 1996; Murrill, 1991; Vollman et al, 1992). A
subset of this category concern themselves with the psychological/sociological aspects of
manufacturing management (Scherer, 1998). The development of alternatives to mass
production over the last 40 years has been revolutionary. Early and influential production
management theorists include Jack Burbidge (1983; 1988) and W. Edwards Deming
(1986), to mention but a few from the West. Taiichi Ohno (1988) and Shigeo Shingo
(1988) were the primary architects of the Toyota Production System, the archetype for
lean production, so named in part to counterpose it to "mass" production. Burbidge's
groundbreaking thought began to emerge in the 1960s. Deming was instrumental in the
implementation of quality management and statistical quality control concepts and
techniques in Japan after the 2nd World War. The work of Ohno and Shingo was
concentrated in the period of the late 50's into the 70's. The Machine That Changed the
World (Womack et al., 1990) reported the findings of an international study of the
automotive industry and was followed by Lean Thinking (Womack and Jones, 1996)

which presented the principles and basic concepts behind the new forms of
manufacturing and proposed to extend them to the entire enterprise. Womack and Jones
have popularized and made more easily accessible the concepts and techniques of lean
production.
Defining production as the designing and making of artifacts allows us to understand
how construction is a type of production and also that design is an essential component
in production generally and in construction specifically. Lauri Koskela (Koskela 1992,
1999; Koskela and Huovila 1997; Koskela et al. 1996, 1997) is the foremost production
theorist in construction. His study of the applicability of newly emergent manufacturing
concepts and techniques to the construction industry has driven him back to the
development of a theory of production as such (Koskela, 1999).
2.1.2 THE MEANING OF “CONTROL”
The term “control” has a wide range of meanings. According to the Concise Oxford
Dictionary, its meanings include to dominate, command; to check, verify; to regulate. It
has long been associated with accounting. The Old French contreroller: to keep a roll of
accounts.
Accounting is the essence of project control theory, more fully described in section
2.2.2 below (Diekmann and Thrush, 1986; Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK), 1996; Riggs, 1986). The essential activity is monitoring actual costs or
schedule performance against target in order to identify negative variances. Corrective
action is obviously necessary in order to correct such negative variances, but the
literature hardly addresses corrective action.

Industrial process control introduces feedback and feedforward mechanisms for
regulating a process (Murrill, 1993). Feedback is initiated by a comparison of actual with
target outputs. Feedforward is initiated by a comparison of actual with target inputs.
The artificial intelligence community contributes the blackboard system of control, in
which coordination of a number of interdependent specialists is managed by rules for
taking turns 'writing on a blackboard'; i.e., for contributing to their collaborative work
(Hayes-Roth, 1985). AI adherents have been in the forefront of empirical study of
design, and despite their technological orientation, have found social and organizational
issues to be of great importance. Finger et al (1995) conclude: “The social process plays
a major role in the articulation and realization of the product design, particularly in large
projects.” (p.89). Bucciarelli (1984) reports that designers spend 85-90% of their time
talking, writing, negotiating, meeting, searching, etc. as opposed to drawing and
calculating.
Production control theorists working in manufacturing distinguish two primary ways
of regulating work flow in manufacturing systems: push and pull. Push systems release
materials or information into a system based on preassigned due dates (from a master
production schedule, for example) for the products of which they are parts. Pull systems
release materials or information into a system based on the state of the system (the
amount of work in process, the quality of available assignments, etc) in addition to due
dates (Hopp and Spearman, 1996). In factory systems, pull may be derivative ultimately
from customer orders. In construction, pull is ultimately derivative from target
completion dates, but specifically applies to the internal customer of each process.
Applicability of these concepts to production control has been explored by this author
(Ballard, 1999).

Some theorists (Kelly, 1994) propose that complex, dynamic systems are regulated
not by anything resembling a central mind, but through the independent action of
distributed decision makers. The following excerpt from Eric Scherer’s introduction to
Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective indicates the emergence of a new conceptual
framework,
“To master the challenges of the future, there must be a change in

our thinking paradigm. Manufacturing is not deterministic! …the
problem of systems design for shop floor control is no longer the
problem of ‘optimization’. The reductionistic paradigm … needs to
be replaced by a holistic paradigm of agile activity, dynamic
behavior, and evolutionary development.”
2.2 Project Management
2.2.1 THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
The construction industry is organized in projects and current production theory and
practice are heavily influenced by the concepts and techniques of project management.
According to PMI’s A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, “a project
is a temporary endeavor undertaken to produce a unique product or service.” The
making (i.e., manufacturing) of multiple copies of a product does not occur through
projects so understood. This focus on product uniqueness and the project form of
organization has dominated thinking about production of the built environment so far as
to discourage learning from non-project industries such as product manufacturing
(Koskela, 1992).
Again according to PMI (1996), project management includes the management of
integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resources, communications, risk, and
procurement. Any or all of these could conceivably concern the actual production
process itself, but perhaps most of all time and cost.

Time management is said to consist of activity definition, activity sequencing, activity
duration estimating, schedule development, and schedule control. The focus is entirely on
delivering project objectives; in Koskela’s terms, on the transformation or conversion
processes (activities) and not on flow or value generation processes. Activities are to be
defined so as to facilitate a division of labor and subsequent tracking (accounting) of
conformance to requirements. There is no mention of structuring work for flow or of
defining activities so that they facilitate the actual performance of the work. Activity
sequencing assumes that handoffs from one set of specialists to the next occur only once;
that there is no repetition or cycling to be managed (“conditional diagramming methods”
are mentioned-see page 63-but not developed). Schedule control is concerned with
managing changes to the schedule rather than with execution of scheduled work; with
the exception of expediting as a type of time management corrective action (see page
72). Cost management is treated very much in the same way as time management. The
question for project management thus remains: ‘Who manages production and how?’
PMI differentiates between project processes and product-oriented processes (page
27), the former being characteristic of all types of projects and the latter specific to the
various types of production with which projects may be involved. What is missing in this
distinction is the concept of the project itself as a temporary production system linked to
other temporary and permanent production systems for materials, equipment, labor, etc.
Projects as such have no necessary connection with production. For example, a project
may be to solve a problem of getting voters to register. In this broad sense of the term,
‘project’ becomes virtually synonymous with a single instantiation of the problem solving
process, and project management consists of the tools and techniques for managing
problem solving processes in groups. On projects that do have production objectives,

production itself takes place alongside project management, but is not directly the
business of project management. Consequently, project control consists of monitoring
progress toward project objectives and taking corrective action when the ship appears to
be off course.
This concept of project control is very different from production control, which is
dedicated to causing events to conform to plan and to replanning when events cannot be
conformed. Production control conceives production as a flow of materials and
information among cooperating specialists, dedicated to the generation of value for
customer and stakeholders.
2.2.2 CRITIQUE OF THE TRADITIONAL PROJECT CONTROL MODEL
Project control has been hitherto conceived and carried out consistently with the
conversion or transformation view of projects (Koskela and Huovila, 1997). The
received wisdom regarding AEC project control systems is founded on a widely shared
conception of their purpose. “This (project control) system must provide the information
needed for the project team and project participants to identify and correct problem areas
and, ultimately, to keep project costs and schedule ‘under control’.” (Diekmann and
Thrush, 1986). The objective is to detect negative variances from target, so corrective
action can be taken. This is quite different from the active concept of control dominant in
manufacturing production control systems, especially those employing a pull strategy, in
which the purpose of control is to cause events to conform to plan. In the following, we
further examine traditional project controls and their difference from the concept of
control in the Last Planner system, which is to be introduced in Chapter 3.
In traditional project control, the objects of control are time and resources.
Resources (labor hours, material, equipment, indirects) are planned and controlled

through cost control systems, the objective of which is productivity, i.e., efficient use of
resources. A budget is prepared for each resource, the use of resources is monitored
against their budgets, and periodic forecasts are made of resource requirements based on
the current state of the project.
Controlling time involves planning, scheduling, and monitoring. Planning decides
what is to be accomplished and in what sequence. Scheduling determines task duration
and timing. Monitoring checks progress of tasks against the schedule and forecasts when
work will be completed. The objective of time control is production or progress, not
productivity.
Decisions made regarding budget and schedule, productivity and production must
recognize their interdependence. Productivity and production are formally related in
earned value systems, which propose a solution to the problem that progress and
expenditure of resources need not coincide. Rates of resource consumption are
established for the various kinds of work to be performed on a project; e.g., 9.32
engineering labour-hours per piping isometric drawing or 12.4 labour-hours per purchase
order. Completing an individual piping isometric drawing earns 9.32 labour-hours
regardless of the actual number of hours consumed in its production. Progress toward
project completion is tracked by accumulating the earned hours and comparing that to
the total hours to be earned for the entire project. For example, suppose the project
schedule calls for production of 10 piping isometric drawings at time t, but only 9
drawings have been produced. Only 83.88 (9 x 9.32) hours have been earned of the 93.2
scheduled, so that portion of the project is 10% behind schedule (83.88/93.2=.90). That
is a measure of production against schedule.

Productivity can be quite a different story. Suppose it has taken only 80 hours to
produce the 9 piping isometric drawings. Since 83.88 hours were earned, the
performance factor is .95 and the piping group is operating at 95% of its budget for
isometric drawings. In this case, the project is behind schedule, but under budget.
Production is poor and productivity is good.
Earned value analysis is a means for controlling projects through productivity and
progress. By itself, it would have the design manager believe that a project is performing
well if it is earning labor hours at the budget unit rate and also earning sufficient hours to
maintain a scheduled earnings plan expressed as percentages of earned hours to total
hours to be earned. The obvious weakness in this control mechanism is that projects may
exhibit budget productivity and be on the earnings plan, but not be doing the right work
in the right way at the right time. Although things appear to be on track, the train is
destined to eventually run off the rails because work is being produced that does not
conform to product quality requirements or to process quality requirements (e.g., out of
sequence). Consequently, quality control is invoked as a separate control mechanism,
although rarely if ever controlling against the objective of expressing customer needs in
engineering specifications, but rather controlling against the objectives of avoiding
calculational and dimensional errors. As for the issue of the timing of work, it has proven
necessary to establish schedule milestones to enforce adherence to a work sequence.
These rear guard actions are frequently ineffective against the dominant progress and
productivity controls, which consequently cause managers to throw the lever in the
wrong direction because they misevaluate actual project performance (Howell and
Ballard, 1996).

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is a key element in traditional project controls.
“A WBS provides a framework for integrated schedule and cost planning and allows for
monitoring and control by management by establishing the manner in which estimates are
assigned and costs are accumulated and summarized.” (p. 21, Diekmann and Thrush,
1986). The objective is to divide the work to be done in the project into parts so they can
be monitored and controlled. No mention is made of the production process as such.
[NB: Inclusion of the flow view adds new criteria to the decomposition process. Roughly
speaking, we want to break the whole into parts so we can more easily put the parts back
together again. Structure work for flow and assembly, not only for budgeting and
monitoring.]
Further decomposition in the traditional process eventually defines work packages as
the smallest unit. Work packages often correspond to contract packages or to pay items
within a single contract. The dominance of the conversion view is perhaps best revealed
in the following quotes: “A work package is a cost center.” (p. 73, Neil, James M.
Construction Cost Estimating for Project Control, 1982). “The WBS provides the
framework for defining the project from the top all the way down to its smallest
components and for accumulating the costs associated with each piece. In so doing, the
WBS provides a data base from which problem areas can be identified, forecasts made,
and corrective action can be taken.” (p. 21, Diekmann and Thrush, 1986). It appears to
be assumed that costs arise within that part of the project in which they are detected.
Further, control is essentially control of behaviour, given the default assumption that
tasks/work packages/contracts can be carried out. The flow view, with its
interdependence of parts (both as regards the 'product' and the process of making that
product), is neglected in this perspective. Equally neglected is consideration of capability.

We are clearly dealing here with a type of push system and the controls appropriate to a
push system.
Despite the focus on cost and schedule ‘accounting’, theorists recognize the primacy
of the control act itself. “Without corrective actions a project control system becomes
merely a cost/schedule reporting system.” (p. 29, Diekmann and Thrush, 1986).
However, the traditional view is that control consists of correcting deviations from plan.
Deviations are expected, but that expectation is not rooted in the idea that variation is
natural, but rather that sin is inevitable. Diekmann and Thrush devote less than two pages
of a 108 page paper to corrective action and provide no more advice than to inform
managers and supervisors at every level in the project about deviations so they can
“…correct those trouble spots.” (p. 28). They appear to assume that causes of deviation
will be apparent and the appropriate corrective action obvious. “These problems can be
easily traced to their source allowing early detection of unfavorable trends.” (p. 33,
Diekmann and Thrush, 1986). If the standard corrective actions are indeed ‘Try harder!’
and ‘Add more men!’, that would be consistent with the traditional view.
Advocates of system dynamics have proposed to supplement traditional network
analyses and models, adding to the “…growing evidence that network analysis on its
own is not sufficient to model and manage the behaviour of projects.” (Williams et al.,
1995, p. 154). They propose to provide additional information to project managers so
they avoid misevaluating the state of the project and consequently making decisions that
cause things to get worse rather than better (See p. 125 of Rodrigues, 1994). Ballard and
Howell (1996) suggest that it is impossible to make good decisions about causes or
corrections of deviations, relying only on productivity and progress data, without
understanding work flow. One can hardly avoid concluding that the traditional control

system is indeed based almost exclusively on the conversion or activity view of the
production system.
2.3 Previous Applications of Production Control Concepts to the AEC

Industry
A survey of the literature reveals several primary contributors to the theory and practice
of production (as opposed to project) control in the construction industry. Ballard and
Howell’s contributions are described in Chapter Three. Melles and Wamelink (1993)
developed a very similar line of thinking independently, culminating in their joint PhD
thesis at Delft University, The Netherlands. Lauri Koskela, Senior Researcher at
Finland’s building research institute, VTT, is the leading theorist in production
management in construction. The University of Reading has been active in the field of
production management for a number of years. John Bennett’s Construction
Management from 1985 is an excellent example of their work. Addis’ 1990 book,
Structural engineering: the nature and theory of design, is also a highly relevant work
for this research. Alexander Laufer’s work on project planning takes a production
control orientation by virtue of its focus on uncertainty and variability and their
management. Given the relative obscurity of Melles and Wamelink’s, only their work is
presented in detail. The work of Koskela is described only to the extent needed to remind
the reader of his vital contributions. That should in no way be taken as an indication of
relative importance of the various contributions.
2.3.1 MELLES AND WAMELINK
Introducing their discussion of the theory of production control, Melles and Wamelink
(1993) explain, “Contrary to what is customary in the construction industry we shall not

assume, beforehand, the theories in the field of project management. …Production
control in construction companies has traditionally been aimed at the control of
projects.” For Melles and Wamelink, production control consists of “…the activities
relating to the adjustment of all aspects of the production process, so that the
preconditions in which the production process is to be executed, are met.” Drawing on
manufacturing production control, they emphasize: 1) Thinking in terms of hierarchical
levels of decision; i.e., control at company level, factory level, and production unit level,
and 2) Thinking in terms of decision functions within the hierarchical levels; i.e.,
aggregate production control, material coordination, workload control, workorder
release, workload acceptance, detailed workorder scheduling, capacity allocation, and
shop floor control. The manufacturing model on which they rely is that of Bertrand et al.,
1990.
Melles and Wamelink propose a ‘translation’ of the manufacturing model into
decision functions appropriate to various types of construction, identifying at the
‘factory’ level project coordination (achieved in part by network schedules), mobilisation
planning (by means of “six weeks scheme”), and allocation planning (by means of “task
scheme”).
In addition to the primary contribution of directing attention to manufacturing theory
and practice, Melles and Wamelink’s work identifies functionalities AEC industry
production control systems should possess. Their specific objective was to assist in the
design of information systems. Consequently, they did not explicitly apply their model to
evaluation of current management systems and practice. However, the overwhelmingly
negative results of so doing are implicit in their critique of project management software.
For example, speaking of project coordination, they comment, “…it can immediately be

deduced that the project management software available on the market is indeed about a
certain aspect (within the framework, the decision function project coordination). The
other decision functions (resource planning, mobilization planning, etc.) are, generally
speaking, not recognizable.” (p. 35). This critique is made more explicitly in Wamelink et
al., 1993.
2.3.2 KOSKELA
Lauri Koskela (1999) proposes the following design criteria or principles for a
production control system. In fact, he claims they are true for the Last Planner system,
which is to be presented in Chapter Three:
"The first principle is that the assignments should be sound regarding their
prerequisites. This principle has also been called the Complete Kit by Ronen
(Ronen 1992). The Complete Kit suggests that work should not start until all the
items required for completion of a job are available. Thus, this principle strives to
minimize work in suboptimal conditions.
"The second principle is that the realization of assignments is measured and
monitored. The related metrics, Percent Plan Complete (PPC), is the number of
planned activities completed, divided by the total number of planned activities, and
expressed as a percentage. This focus on plan realization diminishes the risk of
variability propagation to downstream flows and tasks.
"Thirdly, causes for non-realization are investigated and those causes are removed.
Thus, in fact, continuous, in-process improvement is realized.
"The fourth principle suggests maintaining a buffer of tasks which are sound for each
crew. Thus, if the assigned task turns out to be impossible to carry out, the crew
can switch to another task. This principle is instrumental in avoiding lost

production (due to starving) or reduced productivity (due to suboptimal
conditions).
"The fifth priciple suggests that in lookahead planning (with time horizon of 3-4
weeks), the prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready. This,
in fact, is a pull system that is instrumental in ensuring that all the prerequisites are
available for the assignments. On the other hand, it ensures that too great material
buffers do not emerge on site.”
2.4 Criteria for a Design Production Control System
The preceding review and critique of the literature suggests the following guidelines and
criteria for an effective design production control system:
q Variability must be mitigated and remaining variability managed. Variability is virtually
disregarded in current control systems. But the construction industry certainly has its share of
variability: variability in quality, variability in processing times, variability in deliveries, etc.
Neglect of variability causes greater variability, and there is always an associated penalty.
According to Hopp and Spearman (1996), variability results in some or all of the following:
§ buffering of flows, which increases lead times and work-in-process
§ lower resource utilization
§ lost throughput
q Assignments are sound regarding their prerequisites.
q The realization of assignments is measured and monitored.
q Causes for failing to complete planned work are investigated and those causes are removed.
q A buffer of sound assignments is maintained for each crew or production unit.
q The prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready.
q The traditional schedule-push system is supplemented with pull techniques. Not only do pull
systems usually perform better than push systems (Hopp and Spearman, 1996), but pull systems are

especially needed in conditions of variability.
q Production control facilitates work flow and value generation. Production thinking and practice in
all areas has focused primarily on the task goals of production and neglected flow and value
(Huovila and Koskela, 1997). The object of traditional project control has been behavior. What
needs to be controlled is work flow.
q The project is conceived as a temporary production system. The model for corrective action in
traditional project control is course correction, drawn by analogy from the path of a vehicle bound
for a specific destination with a target arrival time and a specified spending budget or otherwise
limited resources. If the project is to be conceived rather as a temporary production system, the
course correction model is radically oversimplified and inappropriate. The flow of materials and
information is what is to be controlled. They flow through very complex networks of temporary and
permanent production systems. Corrective action must be taken within an understanding of these
networks and of the impact of changes in sequence, processing methodologies, buffer location and
sizing, local control strategies (e.g., pull or push), etc.
q Decision making is distributed in production control systems. Traditional project control assumes
the necessity and possibility of central control. The underlying image is that of a single mind and
many hands. Arguably, dynamic production systems cannot be controlled centrally, but rather are
adaptive creatures driven by decision making at their periphery.
q Production control resists the tendency [of designers and engineers] toward local suboptimization
(Green, 1992). Green's comment was specifically directed to the tendency of designers and
engineers toward local suboptimization, but that is a general tendency of any system in which there
is a division of labor.
In Chapter Three, the Last Planner system of production control is described and
evaluated against these criteria.

CHAPTER THREE: DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF
THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION
CONTROL
3.1 Hierarchical Structure

Aside from the simplest and smallest jobs, design and construction require planning and
control done by different people, at different places within the organization, and at
different times during the life of a project. Planning high in the organization tends to
focus on global objectives and constraints, governing the entire project. These objectives
drive lower level planning processes that specify means for achieving those ends.
Ultimately, someone (individual or group) decides what physical, specific work will be
done tomorrow. That type of plans has been called "assignments". They are unique
because they drive direct work rather than the production of other plans. The person or
group that produces assignments is called the "Last Planner" (Ballard and Howell 1994).
3.2 Should-Can-Will-Did
The term "assignments" stresses the communication of requirements from Last Planner
to design squad or construction crew. But these products of planning at the production
unit level are also commitments to the rest of the organization. They say what WILL be
done, and (hopefully) are the result of a planning process that best matches WILL with
SHOULD within the constraints of CAN.
Ballard 3-1 Last Planner `

Figure 3.1
SHOULD
LAST PLANNER
CAN PLANNING WILL
PROCESS
The formation of assignments in the Last Planner planning process.
Unfortunately, last planner performance is sometimes evaluated as if there could be no
possible difference between SHOULD and CAN. "What will we do next week?”
“Whatever is on the schedule," or “Whatever is generating the most heat.” Supervisors
consider it their job to keep pressure on subordinates to produce despite obstacles.
Granted that it is necessary to overcome obstacles, that does not excuse creating them or
leaving them in place. Erratic delivery of resources such as input information and
unpredictable completion of prerequisite work invalidates the presumed equation of
WILL with SHOULD, and quickly results in the abandonment of planning that directs
actual production.
Failure to proactively control at the production unit level increases uncertainty and
deprives workers of planning as a tool for shaping the future. What is needed is to shift
the focus of control from the workers to the flow of work that links them together. The
Last Planner production control system is a philosophy, rules and procedures, and a set
of tools that facilitiate the implementation of those procedures. Regarding the
procedures, the system has two components: production unit control and work flow

control. The job of the first is to make progressively better assignments to direct workers
through continuous learning and corrective action. The function of work flow control is
perhaps evident in its name—to proactively cause work to flow across production units
in the best achieveable sequence and rate.
3.3 Production Unit Control

The key performance dimension of a planning system at the production unit level is its
output quality; i.e. the quality of plans produced by the Last Planner. The following are
some of the critical quality characteristics of an assignment:
q The assignment is well defined.

q The right sequence of work is selected.
q The right amount of work is selected.
q The work selected is practical or sound; i.e., can be done.
“Well defined” means described sufficiently that it can be made ready and completion can
be unambiguously determined. The "right sequence" is that sequence consistent with the
internal logic of the work itself, project commitments and goals, and execution strategies.
The "right amount" is that amount the planners judge their production units capable of
completing after review of budget unit rates and after examining the specific work to be
done. "Practical" means that all prerequisite work is in place and all resources are
available.
The quality of a front line supervisor's assignments may be reviewed by a superior
prior to issue, but such in-process inspection does not routinely produce measurement
data, even when corrections are necessary. Planning system performance is more easily
measured indirectly, through the results of plan execution.
Percent Plan Complete (PPC) is the number of planned activities completed divided

by the total number of planned activities, expressed as a percentage. PPC becomes the
standard against which control is exercised at the production unit level, being derivative
from an extremely complex set of directives: project schedules, execution strategies,
budget unit rates, etc. Given quality plans, higher PPC corresponds to doing more of the
right work with given resources, i.e. to higher productivity and progress.
Percent Plan Complete measures the extent to which the front line supervisor's
commitment (WILL) was realized. Analysis of nonconformances can then lead back to
root causes, so improvement can be made in future performance. Measuring
performance at the Last Planner level does not mean you only make changes at that
level. Root causes of poor plan quality or failure to execute planned work may be found
at any organizational level, process or function. PPC analysis can become a powerful
focal point for breakthrough initiatives.
The first thing needed is identification of reasons why planned work was not done,
preferably by front line supervisors or the engineers or craftsmen directly responsible for
plan execution. Reasons could include:
q Faulty directives or information provided to the Last Planner; e.g. the information
system incorrectly indicated that information was available or that prerequisite
work was complete.
q Failure to apply quality criteria to assignments; e.g. too much work was planned.
q Failure in coordination of shared resources; e.g. lack of a computer or plotter.
q Change in priority; e.g. workers reassigned temporarily to a "hot" task.
q Design error or vendor error discovered in the attempt to carry out a planned
activity.
This provides the initial data needed for analysis and improvement of PPC, and
consequently for improving project performance.
3.4 Work Flow Control

Here we turn to the topic of work flow control; i.e., causing work to move between

production units in a desired sequence and rate. Production Unit Control coordinates the
execution of work within production units such as construction crews and design squads.
Work Flow Control coordinates the flow of design, supply, and installation through
production units.
In the hierarchy of plans and schedules, the lookahead process has the job of work
flow control. Lookahead schedules are common in current industry practice, but typically
perform only the function of highlighting what SHOULD be done in the near term. In
contrast, the lookahead process within the Last Planner system serves multiple functions,
as listed in Table 3.1. These functions are accomplished through various specific
processes, including activity definition, constraints analysis, pulling work from upstream
production units, and matching load and capacity, each of which will be discussed in the
following pages.

Figure 3.2
PLANNING SYSTEM
Master
Schedule
Action to
prevent
Selecting, repetitive
Current status sequencing, & errors
sizing work we Lookahead
& forecasts
think can be done
Selecting,
Make work Workable sequencing,
ready by Weekly Chart PPC
Information Backlog & sizing work &
screening Work Plans
we know Reasons
& pulling can be done
Completed
Resources Production Work
Last Planner System with Lookahead Process highlighted
The vehicle for the lookahead process is a schedule of potential assignments for the next
3 to 12 weeks. The number of weeks over which a lookahead process extends is decided
based on project characteristics, the reliability of the planning system, and the lead times
for acquiring information, materials, labor, and equipment. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 are
examples of construction and engineering lookahead schedules, respectively. The
lookahead schedule is not a simple drop out from the master schedule. Indeed, it is often
beneficial to have the team that is to do the work in the next phase of a project
collectively produce a phase schedule that serves to coordinate actions that extend
beyond the lookahead window (the period of time we choose to look ahead).

Table 3.1
Functions of the Lookahead Process
• Shape work flow sequence and rate

• Match work flow and capacity
• Decompose master schedule activities
into work packages and operations
• Develop detailed methods for executing
work
• Maintain a backlog of ready work
• Update and revise higher level schedules
as needed.
Functions of the Lookahead Process

Prior to entry into the lookahead window, master schedule or phase schedule activities
are exploded into a level of detail appropriate for assignment on weekly work plans,
which typically yields multiple assignments for each activity. Then each assignment is
subjected to constraints analysis to determine what must be done in order to make it
ready to be executed. The general rule is to allow into the lookahead window, or allow
to advance from one week to the next within the lookahead window, only activities that
can be made ready for completion on schedule. If the planner is not confident that the
constraints can be removed, the potential assignments are retarded to a later date.
Figure 3.3 is a schematic of the lookahead process, showing work flowing through
time from right to left. Potential assignments enter the lookahead window 6 weeks ahead
of scheduled execution, then move forward a week each week until they are allowed to
enter into workable backlog, indicating that all constraints have been removed and that
they are in the proper sequence for execution. If the planner were to discover a

constraint (perhaps a design change or acquisition of a soils report) that could not be
removed in time, the assignment would not be allowed to move forward. The objective is
to maintain a backlog of sound work, ready to be performed, with assurance that
everything in workable backlog is indeed workable.13 Weekly work plans are then
formed from workable backlog, thus improving the productivity of those who receive the
assignments and increasing the reliability of work flow to the next production unit.
Table 3.2
PROJECT: Pilo t 5 WK LOOKAHEAD
ACTIVITY 1 / 133/
/ 997 1/ 20
# / 97 1 /#2 7/ 97 2 / 3#/ 9 7 NEEDS
M T W T F S M T W T F S M T W T F S M T W T F S
Sc ot t 's cre w
"CUP" AHUs-1 0 CHW, 2 HW X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X CHW d elive rs 1 -8 -9 7 t hru
1- 13 .HW de live rs 1 -2 0.
Punch, lab e l, & t ag AHUs x x x Mat er ials on sit e
Ro n's cre w
DI St e a m to Humid ifier x x x Mat er ials on sit e
DI St e a m Blowd own x x Che ck ma t e rial
DI St e a m Co nd. t o x x x x x x x x x x x x x Mat er ial on s it e

co ole rs ( 1 3 )
Charles' cre w
2 00 de g HW 1 -"H" x x x Mat l de live ry 1 -8 -9 7
20 0 de g HW 1 -"B" x x x x x x x x x x Re lea se mat l for 1 -1 5 -9 7

& 1 -"D"
1 st flr 2 0 0 d eg HW x x x x x x x x x x Mat er ial on s it e . Nee d We s t
guide s & ancho rs Wing flr co ve re d.
Richa rd's c rew
2 -"A" HW & CHW x x x x x Co nt rol va lve s for adde d
VAV co ils
CHW in C- E-G t unnels x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ne e d t unne ls paint e d &
re le as e ma t e rials
Misc FCUs & co nd. drains x x x x x x x x x x Ta ke of f & o rde r ma t e rials
in "I" , " J", & "K" 1 st flr
Punch, lab e l & t ag x x x x x x x x x x Mat er ial on s it e
Construction Lookahead Schedule14
13
Deliberately building inventories, inventories of ready work in this case, may seem
contradictory to the goals of just-in-time. To clarify, inventories of all sort are to be
minimized, but as long as there is variability in the flow of materials and information,
buffers will be needed to absorb that variability. Reducing variability allows reduction
of buffer inventories.
14
The "5 Week Lookahead Schedule" excludes the week covered by the Weekly Work
Plan, so shows only 4 weeks.

3.4.1 CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS
Once assignments are identified, they are subjected to constraints analysis. Different
types of assignments have different constraints. The construction example in Table 3.4
lists contract, design, submittals, materials, prerequisite work, space, equipment, and
labor; plus an open-ended category for all other constraints. Other constraints might
include permits, inspections, approvals, and so on. Design constraints can virtually be
read from the Activity Definition Model: clarity of directives (level of accuracy required,
intended use of the output, applicable section of code), prerequisite work (data,
evaluations, models), labor and technical resources. We previously met these constraints
in the discussion of Production Unit Control; then as reasons for failing to complete
assignments on weekly work plans.
Table 3.3
Engineering Lookahead Schedule

Project:
Discipline: Process
Planner: s
Checked By; x
Prep. Dt: 3/14/02
Week Ending: Week Ending: Week Ending: Week Ending:
Activity 3/28/02 4/4/02 4/11/02 4/18/02 OUTSTANDING NEEDS
M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F M T W T F
Provide const support (Q x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Need questions from subs.
& A)
Review submittal(s) x x Need submittals from sub.
Aid with tool install dsgn x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Frozen layout, pkg 1 dwgs.
effort.
Design drains from tools x x x Frozen layout, input from
to tunnel tie-ins. tool install on installation
preferences
Help layout people x x Correct tool list.
complete a layout that will
work well with tool install
routing and drains into
the tunnel.
Complete Pkg 2 x x x x x Final eqpt and mtl usage
specifications from mech & tool install.
Create work plans x x x x
Send package to QA/QC x x Final design dwgs for
reviewer for drain design drains; plot time
review
Start/complete QA/QC x x Set of Package 2 review
review docs, dwgs
Engineering Lookahead Schedule

Constraints analysis requires suppliers of goods and services to actively manage their
production and delivery, and provides the coordinator with early warning of problems,
hopefully with sufficient lead time to plan around them. In the absence of constraints
analysis, the tendency is to assume a throw-it-over-the-wall mentality; to become
reactive to what happens to show up in your in-box or laydown yard.
Figure 3.3
The Lookahead Process: Make Ready by

Screening & Pulling
Master schedule activities entering 6th week
1 2 3 4 5 6
Explode scheduled
Assign- activities into work
ments packages on entry to
the lookahead
window
Screen assignments & make
ready each week enough
Workable work to maintain 2 week
Backlog workable backlog
Notify
Reasons why coordinator
planned work of
not completed constraints
status
Make Ready by Screening and Pulling
3.4.2 PULLING
Pulling is a method of introducing materials or information into a production process.
The alternative method is to push inputs into a process based on target delivery or
completion dates. Construction schedules have traditionally been push mechanisms,

seeking to cause intersections in the future of interdependent actions.
Table 3.4
Screening Assignments: Statusing

Constraints
ID Activity S ta rt C o n tra c t D e s i g n S u b m i t t a l s M a te r i a l s P r e - R e q u i s i t e S p a c e E q u i p m e n t L a b o r O t h e r
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a llF o r m
2 6 0 s L in e s 4 - M . 8 , 3 - M , 3 - 2/9/98
K,4-K.8,3-H O K R F I 6 8 O K O K re b a r O K O K O K N o n e
L a r g e In t e r io r W a l l
3 1 0 2/9/98
Line L Form
In t e r io r S m a l l W a l l s 3 F a
7 0 0 2/9/98
n d 3 D F o r m s
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a llF o r m
1 1 4 2 2/9/98
s L in e s 5 - M . 8 , a n d 5 - K . 8
E a s t W a llB e t w e e n L in e
1 7 0 2/13/98
s 2 a n d 6 L in e D o u b le U p
7 2 0 2/13/98
n d 3 D D o u b le - u p
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a lls L i n
1 1 4 6 e s 5 -M . 8 , a n d 5 - 2/13/98
K . 8 D o u b le -u p
L a r g e In t e r io r W a l l
3 2 2 2/16/98
Line L Doubleup
S m a llIn t e r i o r W a lls L i n
2 9 0 e s 4 -M . 8 , 3 - M , 3 - K , 4 - 2/17/98
K.8,3-HDouble-up
7 3 5 2/18/98
n d 3 D S t rip
Constraints Analysis
By contrast, pulling allows materials or information into a production process only if the
process is capable of doing that work. In our Last Planner system, conformance of
assignments to quality criteria constitute such a check on capability. Further, making
assignments ready in the lookahead process is explicitly an application of pull techniques.
Consequently, Last Planner is a type of pull system.

Figure 3.4
A Traditional (Push)
Planning System
PROJECT
OBJECTIVES
PLANNING THE
INFORMATION WORK SHOULD
EXECUTING
RESOURCES THE PLAN DID
A Traditional (Push) Planning System

Certain things have long been pulled as opposed to pushed; e.g., concrete. With its short
shelf life, concrete cannot be ordered too far in advance of need. Fortunately, the lead
time15 for concrete is short, so it is usually possible to wait until you know when it will
be needed before ordering it.
Generally, a window of reliability greater than supplier lead time is needed in order
for pulling to be most effective. Otherwise, the pulled items may not match up with the
work to which they are to be applied. In the industry now, supplier lead times are for the
most part much greater than our accurate foresight regarding work completion, hence
perhaps a reason for the infrequent use of pulling mechanisms.
15
Lead time is the time in advance of delivery one must place an order. It is often
referred to as “supplier lead time”.

Figure 3.5
Last Planner: A Pull System
SHOULD
LAST PLANNER
CAN PLANNING WILL
PROCESS
Last Planner: A Pull System

3.4.3 MATCHING LOAD AND CAPACITY
Matching load to capacity within a production system is critical for productivity of the
production units through which work flows in the system, and is also critical for system
cycle time, the time required for something to go from one end to the other.
Along with its other functions, the lookahead process is supposed to maintain a backlog
of workable assignments for each production unit (PU). To do so requires estimating the
load various chunks of work will place on PUs and the capacities of PUs to process
those chunks of work. Current estimating unit rates, such as the labor hours required to
erect a ton of steel, are at best averages based on historical data, which are themselves
laden with the tremendous amounts of waste imbedded in conventional practice. When

load and capacity are estimated, are we assuming 30% resource utilization or 60%?
What assumptions are being made about variation around averages? Can we expect
actual unit rates to fall short of the average half the time? Clearly we need much more
accurate data than is typically available.
Whatever the accuracy of load and capacity estimates, the planner must still make
some adjustments. Either load can be changed to match capacity, capacity can be
changed to match load, or, more commonly, a combination of the two. Given the
advantages of maintaining a stable work force and avoiding frequent changes, the
preference is often for adjusting load. However, that will not be the case when there are
pressures to meet scheduled milestones or end dates.
Load can be changed to match capacity by retarding or accelerating work flow.
Capacity can be changed to match load by reducing or increasing resources. Pulling helps
balance load to capacity because the PU can request what it needs and in the needed
amounts.
3.4.4 THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM AS A WHOLE

Last Planner adds a production control component to the traditional project management
system. As shown in Figure 3.6, Last Planner can be understood as a mechanism for
transforming what SHOULD be done into what CAN be done, thus forming an inventory
of ready work, from which Weekly Work Plans can be formed. Including assignments on
Weekly Work Plans is a commitment by the Last Planners (foremen, squad bosses) to
what they actually WILL do.

Figure 3.6
Project
Objective
Planning the
Information SHOULD
Work
Last Planner
CAN WILL
Process
Resources Production DID
The Last Planner System
3.5 A Brief History of the Last Planner System of Production Control
The functions of production management systems are planning and control. Planning
establishes goals and a desired sequence of events for achieving goals. Control causes
events to approximate the desired sequence, initiates replanning when the established
sequence is either no longer feasible or no longer desirable, and initiates learning when
events fail to conform to plan (Ballard, 1998). When environments are dynamic and the
production system is uncertain and variable, reliable planning cannot be performed in
detail much before the events being planned. Consequently, deciding what and how much

work is to be done next by a design squad or a construction crew is rarely a matter of
simply following a master schedule established at the beginning of the project. How are
such decisions made and can they be made better? These questions were the drivers of
initial research in the area of production unit level planning and control under the title of
the “Last Planner System”, a summary report of which is included in Ballard and Howell
(1997).
A key early finding was that only about half of the assignments made to construction
crews at the beginning of a week were completed when planned. Experiments were
performed to test the hypothesis that failures were in large part a result of lack of
adequate work selection rules (these might also be called work release rules). Quality
criteria were proposed for assignments regarding definition, sequence, soundness, and
size. In addition, the percentage of assignments completed was tracked (PPC: percent
plan complete) and reasons for noncompletion were identified, which amounted to a
requirement that learning be incorporated in the control process.
Definition: Are assignments specific enough that the right type and amount of
materials can be collected, work can be coordinated with other trades, and
it is possible to tell at the end of the week if the assignment was completed?
Soundness: Are all assignments sound, that is: Are all materials on hand? Is
design complete? Is prerequisite work complete? Note: During the plan
week, the foreman will have additional tasks to perform in order to make
assignments ready to be executed, e.g., coordination with trades working in
the same area, movement of materials to the point of installation, etc.
However, the intent is to do whatever can be done to get the work ready
before the week in which it is to be done.
Sequence: Are assignments selected from those that are sound in the
constructability order needed by the production unit itself and in the order
needed by customer processes? Are additional, lower priority assignments
identified as workable backlog, i.e., additional quality tasks available in case
assignments fail or productivity exceeds expectations?
Size: Are assignments sized to the productive capability of each crew or
subcrew, while still being achievable within the plan period? Does the

assignment produce work for the next production unit in the size and
format required?
Learning: Are assignments that are not completed within the week tracked and
reasons identified?
As a result of applying these criteria, plan reliability (the percentage of assignments
completed) increased, and with it, crew productivity also increased (Ballard and Howell,
1997)16.
The use of explicit work selection rules and quality criteria for assignments was
termed “shielding production from upstream uncertainty and variation.” (Ballard and
Howell 1994) Such shielding assures to a large degree that productive capacity is not
wasted waiting for or looking for materials and such. However, because of its short term
nature, shielding cannot avoid underloading resources when work flow is out of
sequence or insufficient in quantity. Further, reasons for failing to complete planned
assignments were dominated in most cases by materials-related problems. Consequently,
a second element of the Last Planner System was created upstream of weekly work
planning to control work flow and to make assignments ready by proactively acquiring
the materials and design information needed, and by expediting and monitoring the
completion of prerequisite work (Ballard, 1997).
The tool for work flow control was lookahead schedules. The construction industry
commonly uses lookahead schedules to focus supervisors’ attention on what work is
supposed to be done in the near future. Experiments in work flow control were
performed using lookahead schedules in a very different way than had been traditional. A
16
On the whole, improvements tended to be from PPC levels around 50% to the 65-70% level, with a
corresponding increase of 30% in productivity. Productivity improvement has ranged from 10% to
40%+. It is hypothesized that these differences result from different initial resource utilization
levels. For example, if initial utilization is 50%, corresponding to a PPC of 50%, then increasing
PPC to 70% is matched with an increase in utilization to 65%, which amounts to a 30%
improvement in productivity.

set of rules was proposed for allowing scheduled activities to remain or enter into each
of the three primary hierarchical levels of the scheduling system:
q Rule 1: Allow scheduled activities to remain in the master schedule unless positive knowledge
exists that the activity should not or cannot be executed when scheduled.
q Rule 2: Allow scheduled activities to remain in the lookahead window only if the planner is
confident that the activity can be made ready for execution when scheduled.
q Rule 3: Allow scheduled activities to be released for selection into weekly work plans only if all
constraints have been removed; i.e., only if the activity has in fact been made ready.
In addition, a set of objectives was proposed for the lookahead process:
q Shape work flow sequence and rate

q Match work flow and capacity
q Decompose master schedule activities into work packages and operations
q Develop detailed methods for executing work
q Maintain a backlog of ready work
Lookahead windows are structured such that week 1 is next week, the week for which a
weekly work plan is being produced. Week 2 is two weeks in the future. Week 3 is three
weeks in the future, and so on. Early data indicated that plans as close to scheduled
execution as Week 2 only contained about half the assignments that later appeared on the
weekly work plans for that week. Week 3’s percentage was only 40% (Ballard, 1997).
Failures to anticipate assignments appear to result in large part from lack of detailed
operations design and consequently could be remedied by incorporating detailed
operations design into the lookahead process (see First Run Studies in the Glossary of
Terms)..
While some operations design can be performed once the type of operation and its
general conditions are known, detailed design (certainly of construction operations)
cannot be done until certain additional information is available; i.e., information
regarding material staging areas, adjacent trades, competing claims on shared resources,
which individuals will be assigned to the work, etc. Consequently, detailed operations

design should be performed within the lookahead window, close in time to the scheduled
start of the operation. It is provisionally assumed that this timing requirement applies also
to design activities, but this will be subject to research findings.
3.6 Previous Applications of the Last Planner System to Design
Previous to the research reported in this dissertation, the Last Planner System had not
been applied in full to design production control. However, elements of the Last Planner
System have previously been applied to the management of production during the design
phase of projects. Koskela et al (1997) report that the traditional method of design
management on their test project was incapable of producing quality assignments, and
described the traditional method as follows:
“A drawing due date schedule, and a summary drawing circulation list form the
basis of design management. There are design meetings every two weeks or so,
where a contractor representative (site manager) acts as the chairman. The
contractor may also organize meetings to address specific problems between design
disciplines.
Thus, the primary control set is to reach the drawing due dates. Instead the order or
timing of individual design tasks is not scheduled, but are left for self-management
by the design team. In practice, the design tasks to be executed or input information
needed are discussed in the weekly design meetings. However, this procedure is not
perfect. There is no effective follow-up of decided action, and only a part of output
due is often available. It seems that often parties come unprepared to the meeting.
Design decisions are often made in improvized style, and decisions taken are not
always remembered in next meetings.” (p. 9)
Among the improvement actions taken was progressive detailing of the schedule (in one
month chunks), documentation of input information needs reported in design meetings,
explicit commitment of design supervisors to tasks in the next few weeks, monitoring of

assignments completed, and identification of reasons for noncompletion. As a result,
PPC soon rose to the 70% level. (The negative dip in design meetings [SK] 10-12
resulted from a major design change.) The design time for the building was 30% under
the standard time for the type of building and participants rated the method favorably, as
shown in Figure 3.7.
Miles (1998) reports a more complete and extensive implementation of the Last
Planner System, which included the lookahead process. Overall PPC averaged around
75%, design was completed approximately 10% earlier than anticipated, and design costs
were reduced by 7%. The research also replicated in design earlier findings in
construction (Howell, 1996) regarding the prevalence of plan quality failures. They
found that failures to complete assignments were divided in a ratio of 2 to 1 between
internal impacts they potentially could control and external impacts over which they had
little or no control.
Figure 3.7
REALIZATION % OF ASSIGNED DESIGN TASKS
100 % 80
90 % 70
80 %
60
70 %
Number of tasks
60 % 50
50 % PPC 40
40 % Number of tasks 30
30 %
20
20 %
10 % 10
0% 0
SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK SK
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
VTT Building Technology 1997, VPT
PPC (Koskela et al, 1997)
Figure 3.8

2,00
question 3 question 5 The average replies, on a
1,50
scale of -2 to 2, to the
question 1
1,00 questions :
question 2 1. Was the availability of
0,50 input data improved?
question 4 2. Was the decision
0,00
2
making in design process
-0,50 improved?
3. Did the method yield
-1,00
benefits?
-1,50 4. Was it laborious to
work according to the
-2,00 method?
VTT Building Technology 1997, VPT 5. Should the method be
used in the next project?
Participant Survey (Koskela et al, 1997)
3.7 Evaluation of Last Planner against Criteria for Production Control

Systems
The criteria proposed in the previous chapter were:
q Variability is mitigated and remaining variability managed.

q Assignments are sound regarding their prerequisites.
q The realization of assignments is measured and monitored.
q Causes for failing to complete planned work are investigated and those causes are removed.
q A buffer of sound assignments is maintained for each crew or production unit.
q The prerequisites of upcoming assignments are actively made ready.
q The traditional schedule-push system is supplemented with pull techniques.
q Design production control facilitates work flow and value generation.
q The project is conceived as a temporary production system.
q Decision making is distributed in design production control systems.
q Design production contro resists the tendency toward local suboptimization.
That the Last Planner system of production control conforms to these criteria and
principles should be apparent. It is explicitly dedicated to the reduction and management
of variability. One of the quality criteria for assignments is soundness. PPC measurement
is central. Reasons for plan failure are tracked and analyzed. The lookahead process has
the explicit purpose of maintaining a buffer of sound tasks and also actively makes

scheduled tasks sound and facilitates work flow and value generation. Pulling is evident
both in the assignment quality criteria and in the make ready function within the
lookahead process. The framework for Last Planner is the conception of projects as
temporary production systems. Distributed decision making is evident in the requirement
that only quality assignments be accepted and also in the work flow control decisions to
be made within the lookahead process. And, finally, Last Planner resists the tendency
toward local suboptimization in its application of the criterion 'sequencing', applied both
in lookahead planning and to weekly work plan assignments.
3.8 Research Questions

This new production planning and management method has been in development since
1992 (Ballard & Howell 1997). It has been successfully used in a series of projects
ranging from oil refineries to commercial building construction. Hitherto it has been
used primarily in site construction, rather than in design and engineering and its
implementation has generally resulted in an improvement of work flow reliability, as
measured by percent plan complete, to 65-70% PPC. The questions driving this research
are: 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the
Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70%
PPC level? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan
reliability during design processes ?
It is intuitively obvious that making work flow more reliable (predictable) can reduce
the cost or duration of the total project. When the numerous specialists can rely on
delivery of calculations, drawings, materials, and prerequisite work from other

specialists, both within and outside the project team, they are better able to plan their
own work, and better planning yields better performance. All else being equal, with
greater flow reliability should come more efficient production, less wasted effort and
rework, and better matching of resources to tasks. Even partial and limited
improvements in work flow reliability have demonstrated schedule and cost
improvements (Koskela et al., 1997 and Miles, 1998).
It is also apparent that construction benefits from greater reliability in the flow to the
construction site of information and materials. The impact of more reliable flow of design
information on project cost and duration is much greater in the construction phase of
projects than in design. When constructors can take action in advance of receiving design
information that coordinates the flow of labor and equipment, material deliveries, and
completion of prerequisite work, the project runs more smoothly and efficiently. We
have numerous instances from construction processes showing the benefits of increasing
material and information flow reliability even within the job site itself (Ballard, et al,
1996; Ballard and Howell, 1997).
Consequently, it is appropriate to focus the research question on improving work flow
reliability, with confidence that improving reliability is beneficial to project performance.
Subsequent research may seek to refine and quantify these causal relationships, but the
current research needed is to establish more effective methods for production control in
general and to extend production control techniques to design.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
4.1 Introduction
This thesis is about engineering management, not about epistemology. However, some
epistemological assumptions lie behind any attempt to add to knowledge, in whatever
field. Making those assumptions explicit allows the reader to better understand and
assess claims and inferences. The purpose of this introduction is to clarify
epistemological assumptions. Three issues will be addressed: 1) To what field of
knowledge is this thesis proposing to contribute? 2) Difficulties associated with
competing paradigms in the field. 3) The research strategy and methods used in this
thesis.
4.1.1 ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT AS A FIELD OF STUDY
The topic of this thesis is engineering management, which is assumed to belong to the
general field of technology rather than science. Roozenburg and Eeckels propose that
technology and science pursue different goals through different processes or
methodologies (Roozenburg and Eeckels, 1995, pp. 32-35). Science pursues knowledge
acquisition, while “technology-the design, making, and using of artifacts-is a
systematized form of action.” Both can be pursued methodically. For both, certain rules
have been developed, the observance of which is supposed to “…contribute to efficient
performance of the activity involved.” Both processes involve reasoning. Which
conditions should these two different reasoning processes meet, so they can claim
reliability, meaning that the conclusions to which they lead are correct or true? The
criterion for reliability of scientific reasoning is the truth of the resulting statements. The
criterion for reliability of technological reasoning is the effectiveness of the action

process, based on that reasoning. Of course we may pose a ‘scientific question’ about a
technological claim: ‘Is it indeed true that the proposed action will be effective?’ That is
precisely the type of question posed in this thesis. ‘Is it true that implementing a specific
set of policies and techniques collectively called “the Last Planner system of production
control” improves the reliability of work flow?’
Given this ‘scientific’ question about a technological matter, what methodological
rules are appropriate? What kind of data is needed to answer the question and what kind
of inferences can we expect to make from such data? Many engineering management
theses pose claims about some aspect of engineering management action, use surveys to
collect data regarding same, then apply statistical analyses to test the adequacy of their
claim. This methodology works from a sample of a population to claims about the
population itself by statistical generalization. ‘If 79% of a 151 member sample report that
they include safety records in their prequalification of contractors, what generalization
can I make regarding all members of the population that prequalifies contractors?’ Rules
of statistical generalization exist for answering such questions.
However, statistical generalization from sample to population is an appropriate
methodology in the field of engineering management only if one is interested in testing
claims about current behavior. If the objective is to introduce new policies and behaviors
with the intent of improving engineering management practice, a different type of
methodology is needed. The world of engineering management practice may well be void
of practitioners following the proposed new policies and techniques, so there is no
sample to take. The question is not ‘How many people employ the Last Planner system

and with what effect?’ What’s needed is a type of experiment rather than a survey17. The
relevant question has the form ‘Will the desired consequences result from taking the
proposed action?’
What type of ‘experiment’ is needed to pursue the research questions: 1) What can
be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the Last Planner
system of production control to increase plan reliability as measured by Percent Plan
Complete? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan reliability
during design processes? As is said in the States, “experiment” is a loaded term.
Scholars differentiate between so-called ‘true’ experiments and quasi-experiments
(Campbell and Stanley, 1966). Some propose that case studies be conceived as a type of
experiment, having similar methodological rules (Yin, 1994). No position is taken here
regarding these matters except that some type of experiment is the appropriate
methodology for the type of research question posed as distinct from a survey of current
practice. ‘Experiment’ is conceived in practical terms to mean acting in the world with an
intended effect. As with all experiments, the researcher must be open to learning more or
different things than expected. As with all experiments, generalization from findings is
problematic.
Experiments don’t prove conclusions in the sense of logical deduction even in the
field of natural science. Experimental reasoning is a type of reductive reasoning from
particular to general quite unlike either formal logical reasoning or statistical
generalization. Everything depends on the specifics of given situations. What are the
17
Surveys may be used in conjunction with an experiment or a case study devoted to
implementation of a policy. For example, one could survey participants for opinions
regarding the effectiveness of the policy. The point here is that survey cannot be the
principal or primary research strategy for conducting policy evaluation.

relevant variables and to what extent can they be controlled? Some experiments in
natural science can approximately isolate one (set of) variable(s) from others and so
argue more persuasively that ‘things don’t burn in the absence of oxygen.’ However,
even that extreme type of argument depends essentially on the cohesion and consistency
of theories. As long as the phlogiston theory held sway, oxygen was invisible to the
mind’s eye (Kuhn, 1962). Generalization from experiments is fundamentally a matter of
telling a good story; i.e., having a good theory.
4.1.2 COMPETING ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PARADIGMS
According to Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962),
theories emerge from paradigms, which are fundamental propositions and assumptions
about the subject matter that tend to remain implicit except in periods when paradigms
change. It could be argued that engineering management is currently in just such a period
of paradigm shift. In such periods, communication becomes even more perilous than
normal because the community of researchers and practitioners no longer share a
common language and presuppositions. The research question posed in this thesis
belongs to an emerging engineering management paradigm, in conflict with the prevailing
paradigm. Consequently, care must be taken lest the change in language and
presuppositions hinder the reader. That can best be done by making changes in language
and presuppositions explicit. Recognizing that paradigm shifts are periods of intellectual
conflict, it is not expected that all readers will accept the proposed changes.
In the midst of a paradigm shift, it is difficult and perhaps impossible to clearly
delineate the boundaries of the opposed camps. The conflict is itself producing that
delineation, at the conclusion of which the vanguished disappears into the sands of time

and the victor rides forward toward its own inevitable yet incomprehensible future
defeat. Nonetheless, an effort is required to clarify ‘where all this is coming from.’
The conflict in engineering management was presented in Chapter Two as an
opposition between those who adopt the view of production (the design and making of
physical artifacts) as transforming or converting inputs into outputs and those who add
the flow and value views. At first glance, this hardly appears to belong in the same league
as the shift from a geocentric to a heliocentric cosmology—perhaps the most famous
example of a paradigm shift. Nonetheless, the shift from the conversion to the flow and
value views is enormously important. A prime example is variability, which is itself
virtually invisible from the conversion-only view. Manufacturing has taken the lead in the
development of production theory, yet according to manufacturing theorists,
“…variability is not well understood in manufacturing….” (Hopp and Spearman, 1996,
p. 311) One can only assume that variability is even less well understood in the AEC
industry, where it would seem to be even more an issue. From a pure conversion view,
variability is managed primarily through the provision of schedule and cost contingencies
at the global level of projects, but is neglected in the structuring of work flows and
operations. Once contracts are let, variability ‘officially’ appears only in the form of
failure to meet contractual obligations.
Closely related to the conversion/flow distinction is that between project and
production management. Project management concepts and techniques are oriented to
the determination of project objectives and the means for achieving them (planning), then
to monitoring progress toward those objectives (control). This is a highly abstract
perspective, appropriate to any endeavour that is goal-driven and time-limited; i.e., to
projects. Unfortunately, project management concepts and techniques are employed in

attempts to manage production processes that take on project form without regard to the
specific nature of the projects and production to be managed. This is the more
unfortunate as many projects involve production; i.e., designing and making things.
Management of production projects requires the use of production management concepts
and techniques, which in turn are derivative from the conversion/flow/value views.
Is variability in processing times, arrival rates, errors, and breakdowns visible to
those comfortable with the project management/conversion paradigm? Such matters
might be considered to belong to ‘mere’ production; to be in the province of the
engineering or construction crafts rather than a matter for management. For such
readers, the research questions posed in this thesis may well appear either trivial or
irrelevant.
4.2 Research Design
4.2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION
Prior to selecting a research strategy, it is necessary to determine the research topic,
question, and purpose. The topic of this research is engineering management; more
specifically, improving control of design and construction processes on
architectural/engineering/construction projects. The questions driving this research are:
1) 1) What can be done by way of tools provided and improved implementation of the
Last Planner system of production control to increase plan reliability above the 70%
PPC level? 2) How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied to increase plan

reliability during design processes18? The purpose of the research is to evaluate and
improve the effectiveness of this managerial policy and practice.
Evaluation is a type of applied or action research (McNeill, 1989), concerned with
technology in the broad sense; i.e., goal-oriented action. Evaluations typically pursue
improvement of the subject policy or practice in addition to rating effectiveness against
objectives. Simple rating is often made more difficult because of changes made mid-
stream in the policy or practice being evaluated. Opportunity for improvement seldom
waits on the desire for an unambiguous definition of what is to be evaluated. Indeed,
evaluation and improvement often blur together, especially when the researcher is
involved in the creation and implementation of the policies and practices being
implemented and evaluated, as is the case with this researcher and research. Some might
worry about an involved researcher’s objectivity. On the other hand, it may simply be
that technological research demands another concept and procedure than that of
traditional, fact finding research.
Evaluation does not fit neatly within the classification of traditional purposes of
enquiry; i.e., exploratory, descriptive, explanatory. The conceptual model for
technological research appears to have been drawn from the natural sciences, for which
the (immediate) goal is rather to understand than to change the world. Policy evaluation
involves exploration, description, and explanation, but subordinates those purposes to
the overriding purpose of improving practice. Nonetheless, improving practice requires
understanding what works and does not work, and to as great an extent as possible,
understanding why what works and what does not. Consequently, the purpose of this
18
In this thesis, the term “design” is used to designate both design and engineering
activities; not shaping space to aesthetic criteria.

research includes determining the extent to which the Last Planner system is effective
and why it is or is not effective.
4.2.2 RESEARCH STRATEGIES
The three traditional research strategies are experiment, survey, and case study (Robson,
1993, p.40). It has previously been argued in this chapter that a survey strategy is
inappropriate for the question posed by this research. The research strategies that could
possibly lend themselves to investigation of this research question include true
experiments, quasi-experiments, and case studies.
True experiments require establishing a control group that differs in no relevant way
from the experimental group. A true experiment was not appropriate because of the
difficulty of establishing a control group and lack of control over extraneous variables.
At first glance, it would seem to be possible to use a pre-test, post-test, single group
design, measuring flow reliability of the same group before and after implementation of
the Last Planner system. This approach has several difficulties: 1) Work flow reliability is
not an explicit, measured objective of traditional production control systems, so pre-test
quantitative data is not available, and 2) our ability to generalize from the experimental
results is limited by the possibility that those who choose to try the Last Planner method
are somehow different from those who do not so choose. The second difficulty could be
managed by conditioning and qualifying the inferences drawn from the experiment. The
first difficulty, the lack of quantitative data on flow reliability for the pre-test, could be
handled by substituting subjective data, in the form of interview results. However, this is
clearly an inferior solution, and so pushes the researcher to find a more effective research
strategy.

Quasi-experiments are “…experiments without random assignment to treatment and
comparison groups.” (Campbell and Stanley, 1966, cited in Robson, 1993, p. 98) They
admittedly sacrifice some of the rigor of true experiments, but are nonetheless
appropriate for a large range of inquiry, where true experiments are impossible or
inappropriate. The key issue regarding quasi-experiments is what inferences can be
drawn. It is proposed that inferences be justified in terms of study design, the context in
which the study occurs, and the pattern of results obtained (Cook and Campbell, 1979).
While this strategy responds to the difficulty of generalizability posed above, it still
leaves us without pre-test quantitative data on flow reliability in design, and
consequently, is not by itself an adequate strategy for pursuing this research.
Case study is “…a strategy for doing research through empirical investigation of a
contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of
evidence” (Robson, p. 52). Case studies are an appropriate research strategy when there
is little known about the topic of interest, in this case, for example, how production is
managed in design; and a change in theory or practice (production control) is proposed
(Robson, p.169). Multiple case studies allow the researcher to pursue a progressive
strategy, from exploration of a question to more focused examination of trials. Given the
policy nature of the research question being posed, a multiple case study strategy seems
appropriate.
4.3 Research Methods
4.3.1 DATA COLLECTION
Executing a research strategy requires methods for data collection and analysis. What
research methods are available, especially for case studies, the research strategy to be

pursued in this thesis? Of those available, which fit best with conditions such as
accessibility to people and documents, involvement of the researcher in managerial
decision making, time available, etc?
Methods for data collection include direct observation, interviews and questionnaires,
and documentary analysis. A variant of direct observation is participant observation; i.e.,
observational reporting by a researcher who is part of the group being observed.
All these methods of data collection are used in this research. In all cases, the
researcher served as a consultant to the project team, and consequently was in the role of
participant observer rather than a neutral observer. Specific observational data was
collected from participation in project coordination meetings and other events devoted to
planning and controlling design and construction processes. Interviews or questionnaires
were used in all cases to collect team member assessments, both during the course of
each project and at the conclusion of each. Interviews were also used to collect other
participants’ observations of meetings and events relevant to project control at which the
researcher was not present. Records collected included meeting minutes and memos,
various forms of schedules, and action item logs. In all cases, measurements were made
and recorded of short-term assignments, their due dates, actual completion dates, and
reasons for failure to complete assignments on their due dates.
4.3.2 DATA ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION
McNeill (1989) suggests three key concepts: reliability, validity, and representativeness.
Reliability concerns the extent to which research can be repeated by others with the same
results. “Validity refers to the problem of whether the data collected is a true picture of
what is being studied.” Representativeness concerns whether the objects of study are
typical of others, and consequently, the extent to which we can generalize.

Reliability in action research is inevitably questionable because of the active role
played by the researcher in generating the phenomena being studied. Validity of findings
is especially difficult in survey research because of the potential difference between what
people say and what they do. It is less a problem for action research because of its public
nature and the availability of measurement data such as PPC (Percent Plan Complete).
Generalizability from the cases is a question that cannot be completely answered, no
more than it can for a limited number of laboratory experiments. However, unlike
laboratory experiments, policy implementations are made in the messy reality of
organizations and social relations. Few if any variables can be completely controlled. In
the case of this research, attempts are made to control key variables of implementation
and execution of the system. However, it is recognized that control is partial and
incomplete. Nonetheless, having demonstrated even on a single project that plan
reliability can be improved is sufficient to establish system effectiveness. Future work
may be devoted to better understanding the conditions necessary for such success.
Another difficulty is that plan reliability is measured by PPC ('percent plan complete';
i.e., percentage of assignments completed), but PPC does not directly measure plan
quality. First of all, success or failure in assignment completion may be a consequence
either of the quality of the assignment or of its execution. Since the Last Planner system
primarily attempts to improve plan quality, execution failures and therefore PPC may not
vary with its effectiveness. In addition, apart from unsound assignments, it is often
difficult to differentiate between an execution and a quality failure. Was the assignment
poorly defined or was the problem with the lack of effort or skill on the part of the
designers or builders?

Yet a further difficulty is the ambiguity of assignment ‘completion’ when assignments
have not been well defined. An assignment to “Produce as many piping drawings as you
can by the end of the week” might be marked as completed. The researcher can partially
guard against this problem by reviewing assignments for adequate definition. However, it
is virtually impossible for the researcher to prevent someone marking assignments
completed in order to ‘make the worse appear better’. The best defense might be to
convince those doing the marking that PPC is not a measure of individual but of system
performance. Unfortunately, that is not quite true. Individuals can be better or worse at
defining, sizing, sequencing, and assessing the soundness of assignments. PPC records of
individual front line supervisors can be revealing of those capabilities.
For these various reasons, evaluating the impact of the Last Planner system on plan
reliability is no straightforward matter. Similar difficulties beset improving the system,
which occurs through understanding and preventing plan quality failures. It is often
difficult to accurately determine reasons for failure. Unsoundness of assignments is the
easiest to determine because something is lacking that is needed to do the assignment
properly; e.g., a soils report, a stress calculation, a decision between alternative designs,
etc. Failures from sizing or sequencing are more difficult to identify. The later case
studies incorporate efforts to improve plan failure analysis based on experiences in the
previous cases.
4.3.3 CASE STUDIES
The research was done through a series of case studies. The first case, the CCSR project,
was an exploratory extension of the Last Planner system to the coordination of multiple
trades on a construction project. The primary improvement from that case was the
addition of the constraints analysis process. The second case, the Next Stage project, is

an exploratory case study on the extension of the Last Planner system to design
production control. Case Three shows the efforts of a speciality contractor, Pacific
Contracting, to improve its work flow reliability. It may well reveal the limits on a
speciality contractor implementing the Last Planner system unilaterally. Case Four, the
Old Chemistry Building Renovation project, shows the potential for improvement in
work flow reliability from a more thorough and deliberate education and training of the
project team. Case Five is the Zeneca Project, one of several implementations of the Last
Planner system undertaken by Barnes Construction with significant education and
coaching provided to the participants, and application of the latest thinking and
techniques in the Last Planner system.

CHAPTER FIVE: CASE ONE-CCSR PROJECT
5.1 Project Description and Last Planner Implementation
The CCSR Project was a laboratory building for Stanford University for which the
general contractor was Linbeck Construction. CCSR stood for Center for Clinical
Services Research. Prior to CCSR, the Last Planner system of production control had
been implemented primarily by contractors doing direct production work. There was
some question about how to apply Last Planner to subcontracted projects and how
effective that application might be. CCSR was selected as a pilot project to explore
feasibility and develop techniques. The specific research question was: How/Can plan
reliability be improved during site construction on largely subcontracted projects?
The research plan was to introduce the techniques listed below during weekly
subcontractor coordination meetings, then measure PPC and track reasons for
noncompletion of weekly assignments.19 In addition to the Last Planner procedures and
techniques previously developed, the intent was to do the following:
1. Detailed scheduling by phase20.
2. Intensive subcontractor involvement in phase scheduling.
3. Collection of status input from subs before the scheduling meeting.
4. Trying to select only tasks each week that are free of constraints.
19
The author introduced the system to the project and visited periodically during the
course of the subsequent three month pilot. Under the author's direction, Abraham
Katz, a Stanford graduate student, assisted the project superintendent with
scheduling and documentation as part of an independent study performed for
Professor Martin Fischer. The author is a consulting professor at Stanford and also at
the University of California at Berkeley.

5. Measuring PPC, identifying and acting on reasons.
A weekly planning cycle (Table 5.1) was established that specified who was to do what
during each week as regards planning and control. For example, subcontractors were to
status their tasks scheduled for the next 3 weeks by noon Monday, so the general
contractor (GC) could revise the short interval schedule, which in their case covered a 6
week lookahead period.
Status reporting consisted of completing a constraints analysis form, shown in Table
5.2, which shows selected scheduled tasks for three of the subcontractors on the project.
Common constraints on the readiness of scheduled tasks for assignment and execution
were included on the form; i.e., contract, design, submittals, materials, prerequisite work,
space, equipment, and labor. An open-ended, "other" category was also provided to
capture less common constraints. The intention was to focus attention and action on
making scheduled tasks ready by removing their constraints.
5.2 PPC and Reasons
Several kinds of data were collected: PPC and reasons, auxiliary documents such as
phase and master schedules, and the observations of the
researcher. PPC and reasons data was collected each week from
12/24/97 through 3/3/98, during the wettest season in the San
Francisco area in recorded history. Although the project had taken
weatherizing precautions to minimize weather-related delays, such
as type of fill material and drainage systems, nonetheless rain was
20
A phase was conceived in terms of a relatively independent facility system. For
example, the first phase-during which this research was conducted-was from

by far the most frequently cited reason for failing to completed
assignments on weekly work plans
Table 5.1
Friday A.M. Friday Noon Mon A.M. Mon P.M. Tu A.M. Tu P.M. Wed-Tu
GC collects GC GC revises
A/E and GC and subs meet GC produces All perform work
information produces a short
subs status to: 1) status this and on the current
needed to preliminary interval
tasks in next week's plan, distributes weekly work plan
produce the short short interval schedule
3 weeks and identify reasons for plan reliability and expedite
interval schedule; schedule &
give back to failing to complete charts and removal of
I. e.g. progress on gives to subs
GC final short
current week's and A/E planned tasks, and constraints on
agree on actions to interval future weeks' work
plan, updated
prevent repetition, schedule plans
delivery schedules
* Subs status tasks for and 2) finalize the
(rebar, responses
these constraints: lookahead
to RFIs, etc), * The plan
contract, design, schedule * GC reviews the
changes in reliability charts
submittals, matls, phase schedule
objectives or measure how
prerequisite work, and master
design well the team is
tools & eqpt, space, Guidelines: 1) schedule for
achieving its
* The short interval schedule labor, other. A/E Schedule for next needed
goal of
covers the construction tasks statuses tasks by week (Wed thru adjustment.
scheduling
required to achieve a schedule specifying the Tu) only tasks that
three weeks
milestone (e.g. slab-on-grade information or decision have no
ahead only
by 2/28/97) and the design needed. constraints or have
tasks that can
and supplier tasks providing *Both subs and A/E only constraints
be completed,
needed information and are answering the you know can be
and completing
materials. The team develops questions: 1) If removed in time. 2)
all tasks
a detailed schedule for each constraints are in your Schedule in the
scheduled up
phase of the job at least 4 control, are you 2nd and 3rd weeks
to three weeks
weeks before starting that confident they will be only tasks you are
ahead. The
phase. The phase schedule removed in time? 2) If confident can be
idea is that
then becomes the control constraints are not in made ready in
productivity will
schedule for short interval your control, what help time. The goal is
be higher when
scheduling each week. do you need from 100% plan
schedules are
others? reliability for the
reliable.
next three weeks.
CCSR-Weekly Planning Cycle
Table 5.2
CCSR Weekly Planning Cycle
excavation to slab-on-grade.

Table 5.2
Wills
II. I Activity Start Contract Design Sub Mate Pre- Space Equip Labor Other
mitta rial Requi ment
D ls site
950 Tunnel Lobby - 3/4/98
Walls Rebar
1040 Footings 6 & 7 3/4/98
Dowels
1220 Footings 6 & 7 3/4/98
Between A and
H Dowels, and
Footings E & G
Dowels
Between 4.5
and 8
630 Line 4 Wall 3/6/98
and Line C
Wall Rebar
344 Large Interior 3/9/98
Wall Line J
and H.8 Rebar
1154 Small Interior 3/9/98
Wall Rebar
Lines 6-K, and
6-M, 6-P
Cupertino
Electric
ID Activity Start Contract Design Sub Mate Pre- Space Equip Labor Other
mitta rial Requi ment
ls site
402 Inspection 3/4/98
Underground 3/5/98
Electrical N-W
S-W Quadrant
CCSR-Constraints Analysis Form
PPC was measured as shown in Figure 5.1, ranging from an initial measurement of 56%
during the week of 12/24/97 to 70% in the week of 3/3/98. Rain
was cited as the reason for 18 plan failures (see Figure 5.2) and
was a contributing reason to even more. Other

frequently cited reasons were lack of prerequisite work (14), availability or quality of
design information (8), and submittals (6).
Removing rain as a reason, weekly PPC would have been as shown in Figure 5.3, with a
mean PPC for the research period of 71% (149 of 211
assignments completed), which compared favorably to work flow
reliability achieved through previous application of the Last
Planner system to projects which were not subcontracted.21
Figure 5.1
90%
80%
70%
60%
% Completed
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
12/24/97 12/31/97 1/6/98 1/14/98 1/18/98 1/25/98 2/3/98 2/10/98 2/17/98 2/24/98 3/3/98
Week
CCSR-Weekly PPC
21
Ballard et al., 1996; Ballard and Howell, 1997

Table 5.3
Week 12/24/97 12/31/97 1/6/98 1/14/98 1/18/98 1/25/98 2/3/98 2/10/98 2/17/98 2/24/98 3/3/98
PPC 56% 86% 57% 67% 73% 75% 50% 53% 74% 44% 70%
Tasks 5 6 8 10 11 18 7 10 23 19 14
Completed
Tasks 9 7 14 15 15 24 14 19 31 43 20
Planned
Rain 1 1 3 6 2 2 1 2 18
Pre-Requisite 2 2 1 7 2 14
Design 1 1 4 2 8
Submittal 2 2 2 6
Other 1 1 1 1 4
Space 1 2 3
Equipment 2 2
Labor 1 1 2
Materials 1 1
Contract 0
CCSR-PPC and Reasons Data
Figure 5.2
25
20
Number Of Ocurrences
15
10
0
Rain Pre-Requisite Design Submittal Other Space Equipment Labor Materials Contract
Reason
CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion

Figure 5.3
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Weekly PPC
50%
Mean PPC
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
97
97
98
98
98
8
8
/9
/9
/9
/9
/9
/9
4/
1/
6/
3/
3/
14
18
25
10
17
24
/2
/3
1/
2/
3/
1/
1/
1/
2/
2/
2/
12
12
CCSR-PPC without rain
As shown in Table 5.4, reasons for plan failure were categorized as either an Execution
Failure or a Plan Failure22. Of the 57 total failures23, 28 were determined to have resulted
from some defect in planning, while 29 were attributed to some defect in execution. The
18 failures caused by rain were categorized as execution failures. Disregarding rain, Plan
Failures would have amounted to 28 of 38, or 74%, further evidence that to a substantial
degree, our fate is in our own hands as regards planning and work flow. In even extreme
weather conditions, fully half of noncompletions resulted from poor planning.
22
This distinction was introduced into the Last Planner system in Ballard (1994).
23
Note the absence of detailed information for failures in the week of 12/24/97. Their
inclusion would add 4 noncompletions to the total.

Table 5.4
Week 12/31
Activity Reason Type Of Failure
item 6 - Sump Pit Lid Other: Low Priority Plan
Form
Week 1/6
item 3 - Underground Rain Execution
Plumbing
Item 13 - East Wall Design: RFI Execution
Forms
Item 32 - Elevator Wall Pre-Requisite: Not Plan
Forms Identified
Item 43 - 2&3 Line Equipment: Backhoe Execution
Excavation
Item 44 - A,C & 4 Line Equipment: Backhoe Execution
Excavation
Item 45 - 2&3 Line Rebar No Excavation Plan
Week 1/14
item 26 - Elevator 1&2 Floor Drain Submittals Plan
SOG Pour
Item 44 - Elevator Pour Shop Drawings Plan
Up to Tunnel Level
Item 43 - Form South Waiting Rebar Plan
East Quadrant Fabrication
Item 29 - Rebar J Line Waiting On Excavation Plan
Item 7 - Access Panel Submittal Plan
Week 1/18
210 - Design Change Not Back Plan
Rebar Submittals
270 - Interior Wall Rebar Not Back Plan
Submittals
A,C, & 4 Line Excavation Productivity/Rain Execution
A,C, & 4 Line Rebar No Excavation Plan
Week 1/25

Excavate Line F and 7 Rain Execution
(MidWest)
Interior Wall Forms Rain Execution
N,Q,L Lines Rebar Rain Execution
Installation
Reveals Location Waiting On Architect Plan
RFI Line 7 (Cupertino) Answer Incomplete Plan
Tunnel Piping Submittal Approval Plan
Week 2/3

Excavate F Line Rain Execution
Backfill Sump pit Rain Execution
Template Footings A and Rain Execution
4 Line
Electrical Conduit Rain Execution
Elevator 5
Small and Large Walls Rain Execution
Single Form
Wall Double up @ Waiting For Inspection Plan
Tunnel Lobby
Backfill N-E/S-E Quad. Rain Execution
Week 2/10

Plumbing between lines J Rain Execution
&M
Plumbing Line 6.5 Rain Execution
Small Interior Walls Form Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
Small Interior Walls Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Double Up Rain
Large Interior Walls Form Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
Large Interior Walls Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Double Up Rain
Small Wall Rebar Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
Line L wall Rebar Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
Rain
E & G Line Rebar from 2 Eleveator Jack Drilling / Execution
to 5 Rain

Week 2/17

Elevator Wal Backfill Rain Execution
Line J Excavation Backfill Execution
Plumbing/Rain/Mud
Line 6.5 Excavation After 6 & 7 Line Concrete Plan
Small Interior Wall Forms Design Change Plan
Small Walls Double Up Design Change Plan
Small Walls Rebar Design Change Plan
Perimeter Wall Line 2 Design Change Plan
Rebar
Footings 6 & 7 Rebar Rain Execution
Week 2/24

Planter Excavation Space Plan
Interior Small Walls Rebar Change/Permit Plan
Tunnel lobby SOG Sequence Change Plan
Line L Wall Rebar Change/Permit Plan
Line J Footing Rain Execution
Wall Line 2 From A-D Man Power Plan
Week 3/3
Footings E&G Excavation Space For Crane Plan
Line J Concrete Rain Execution
Footings 6&7 Concrete Rain Execution
Court Yard Planter Crane Reach Plan
Small Interior Walls Man Power Plan
Pipe Ties In @ Tunne Waiting On Stanford Info Plan
CCSR-Reasons for Noncompletion (detailed and categorized)
5.3 Observations
Subcontractors were not selected based on their understanding or willingness to
participate in the Last Planner production control system. They were selected based on
traditional criteria such as financial soundness and bid price. Subcontractor personnel
first learned about the system and the expectations regarding their roles and

responsibilities within it after coming to the site. Not surprisingly, some were more
capable and enthusiastic about participating than others. Even so, the project
superintendent continued to use the Last Planner system and reported that eventually all
foremen were participating and that they began to hold each other accountable for
keeping their weekly work plan commitments. Nonetheless, it would have been
preferable both to incorporate participation in the production control system in the
selection criteria and subcontracts, and also to have devoted more time and effort to
education and training.
Shortly after introducing the system, it became apparent that more active
involvement of others besides the site foremen was needed. Subcontractor project
managers were invited to attend the weekly meetings and were better able to understand
what was going on, and specifically better able to provide status information regarding
constraints such as submittals, design issues, fabrication, and deliveries. There was also
efforts made to involve the architect and design engineers on the project. Unfortunately,
those efforts failed, in part because of the stage of design completion and the fact that the
production architect/engineer was on a lump sum contract and concerned lest they run
out of money before they ran out of work.
Analysis of constraints was a key element introduced into the Last Planner system on
CCSR. Efforts to collect constraints information from subcontractors prior to the
coordination meeting were mostly unsuccessful, perhaps in large part because there is no
tradition in our industry for such activities. Consequently, much of meeting time was
dedicated to data collection rather than planning and problem solving.

5.4 Learnings
Learnings for future projects included:
q Incorporate production control requirements into subcontracts.
q Select subcontractors for their ability and willingness to participate in the production
control system.
q Involve owner, architect, and engineers in the production control process; preferably
from the beginning of design.
q Send to subcontractor project managers by email or fax each week constraint reports
with the next 5-6 weeks scheduled activities listed and ask them to status their
activities and report back. Make sure this happens so meeting time can be used for
planning and problem solving as opposed to data collection.
q Use team planning techniques to produce schedules for each phase of work, with
participation by foremen, superintendents, and designers.
q Incorporate reasons identification, analysis, and corrective action into weekly
coordinating meetings. Otherwise, there is a danger that incompletions become
accepted as unavoidable.

CHAPTER SIX: CASE 2-NEXT STAGE PROJECT
6.1 Description of the Project and Last Planner Implementation
Next Stage Development was created to design, build, and operate a series of 7,000 seat
enclosed amphitheaters in various U.S. cities, accommodating Broadway shows and
musical entertainment with amplified sound. Its first project was the Texas Showplace,
located in Dallas, Texas. Architect, design consultants, engineering firms, fabricators,
and construction contractors were selected based on qualifications and willingness to
participate in the project. The intent was to create an All-Star team by selecting the very
best.
The general contractor and equity participant in Next Stage Development is Linbeck
Construction, a founding member of the Lean Construction Institute, which was
cofounded by the author and Greg Howell in August, 1997. Next Stage’s management
chose to implement elements of “lean thinking” in the design and construction of its
facilities, specifically including the Last Planner method of production control. A Kickoff
Meeting was held for the production team May 19-21, 1998 in Houston, Texas and co-
facilitated by the author. Key outcomes of the meeting were 1) forming the fifty plus
individuals and multiple companies into a team, and 2) collectively producing a “value
stream” (Womack and Jones’ [1996] term for the flow diagram of a production process
that produces value for the stakeholders in the process). This author's report on the
Kickoff Meeting is included in Appendix A.
In the Kickoff Meeting, the participants were divided into a number of different
teams, corresponding roughly to the facility systems: Site/Civil, Structural, Enclosure/
Architectural, Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection, Theatrical/Interiors, and

Project Support. These teams remained intact as the administrative units for production
of the design.
After the Kickoff Meeting, the design process continued, initially with a target
completion date of 11/15/99. However, after roughly the middle of August, 1998, delays
in arranging equity financing and performance commitments caused the construction
start and end date to slip ever further out, until the project was finally suspended..
The design process was managed primarily through biweekly teleconference
(Appendix B). Tasks needing completion within the next two week period were logged
as Action Items (Appendix C) , with responsibility and due date assigned. Tasks needing
completion beyond the next two week period were logged as Issues (Appendix D).
Design decisions were recorded in a Design Decisions Log (Appendix E). When action
items were not completed as scheduled, reasons were assigned from a standard list
(Table 6.1) and a new due date was provided.
Table 6.1
1. Lack of decision
2. Lack of prerequisites
3. Lack of resources
4. Priority change
5. Insufficient time
6. Late start
7. Conflicting demands
8. Acts of God or the Devil
9. Project changes
10. Other
Next Stage-Reasons for Noncompletion
6.2 Data
6.2.1 PPC AND REASONS
The percentage of action items completed was tracked and published biweekly.

Table 6.2
4 week moving 57% 60% 63% 64% 58% 57% 55%
ave.
PPC - NextStage™ Texas ShowPlace Planning Percent Complete for Preconstruction Meetings
Week 7/1/98 7/15/98 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/98 10/21/98 11/4/98
PPC 46% 50% 63% 71% 57% 61% 68% 47% 54% 54%
Tasks 28 33 48 37 29 36 26 20 26 20
Completed
Tasks 61 66 76 52 51 59 38 43 48 37
Planned
Next Stage-PPC Data
The number of tasks or action items completed was divided by the number planned each
two week period and a percentage calculated. For example, In the two week period
beginning 11/4/98, 37 action items were assigned, of which 20 were completed, which
amounts to 54%. In addition, a four week moving average was calculated in order to
smooth the data and hopefully reveal trends. Through 11/4/98, the four week moving
average was 55%, calculated by averaging the previous four weeks data.
The columns in Figure 6.1 represent the aggregate average completion percentage
for all teams for each two week planning periods. PPC rose from an initial measurement
of 46% to above 70% in the 4th two week planning period. Subsequently, perhaps
connected with the end date slipping out, PPC rose and fell in a generally downward
trend, winding up around 55%.

Figure 6.1
Percent of Plan Completed
80%
70%
60%
50%
% Completed
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
7/1/98 7/15/98 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/98 10/21/98 11/4/98
Week
Next Stage PPC Data
There was considerable variation between teams. Through 9/9/98, PPC of the various
teams was as follows:
Site/Civil 78%
Structural 35%
Enclosure/Architectural 62%
Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection 55%
Theatrical/Interiors 52%
Project Support 85%
Table 6.3 exhibits the reasons categories used on the project and the frequency of reason
by category each week of the data collection period. It is apparent that three categories
dominate; i.e., lack of prerequisite work, insufficient time, and conflicting demands, in
that order. Unfortunately, such categories reveal little about root causes, so do not
facilitate corrective action.

Table 6.3
Reasons/ 7/1/ 7/15/ 7/29/98 8/12/98 8/26/98 9/9/98 9/23/98 10/7/ 10/21/9 11/4/9 12/2/9 All
Date 98 98 98 8 8 8 Wee
ks
Decision 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 17
Prerequisit 7 16 8 2 7 10 3 5 6 4 68
es
Resources 1 2 0 3
Priority 3 4 6 1 1 15
Change
Insufficient 5 6 1 6 6 10 8 10 6 4 62
Time
Late start 4 1 1 1 1 8
Conflicting 7 7 3 1 7 2 4 6 5 42
Demands
Acts of God 3 0 3
Project 0 1 1
Changes
Other 2 1 3
Next Stage-Reasons
6.2.2 OBSERVATIONS (See Appendices A and B for a report on the Kickoff meeting and
the author’s notes on project teleconferences.)
6.2.3 FEEDBACK FROM PARTICIPANTS
In October, 1998, the Site/Civil team agreed to select five plan failures and analyze them
to root causes by asking "Why?" up to five times in succession. Review of Site/Civil’s
analyses revealed that failure to understand criteria for successful completion of
assignments was the most common cause. Generally, failures were caused by not
understanding something critically important; City requirements for traffic analysis,
applicable codes for drainage, actual soil conditions, who had responsibility for what.
Presenting reasons were often quite distant from root causes and frequently the failing
party did not control the root cause. This sample also raised significant questions about
adherence to quality requirements for assignments. For example, why did Site/Civil
accept #1 (were they sure they had the capacity to take on this additional task?) or #2

(why did they think Mechanical would give them the information they needed in time for
Civil to do its work?)?
Failure #1: Failed to transmit site plan package to the
general contractor as promised. Reason provided: conflicting
demands—“I was overwhelmed during this period.” 5 why’s
revealed that the required time was underestimated for collecting
the information needed because the City’s requirements for traffic
analysis were different and greater than had been assumed.
Failure #2: Failed to revise and submit site drainage for
revised commissary roof drainage. Reason provided: prerequisite
work. The mechanical contractor originally provided drainage
data on pipe sizes, inverts, etc., then discovered that City codes
required additional collection points. Civil is waiting on
Mechanical to provide data on these additional collection points.
Failure #3: Failed to complete Road “D” plan to support
easement and operating items. Reason provided: prerequisite
work. The root cause was the same as for #1; i.e., failure to
understand City requirements for traffic analysis.
Failure #4: Failed to make an engineering determination
from 3 alternative pavement designs provided. Reason provided:
prerequisite work and insufficient time. “This item was not
anticipated. Why was it not anticipated? The City refused to
accept our pavement design. Why did they refuse to accept our

pavement design? Soil conditions were different from past
projects. The lack of prerequisite design work referred to the soil
borings in the borrow site. We also are investigating other sources
for dirt. Why was time insufficient? We neglected to plan for the
time required to mobilize soils testing.” The root cause was
assuming soil conditions would be the same. A process flow
diagram might have revealed the significance of that assumption.
Failure #5: Failed to determine/coordinate location of
easements after final design by Texas Utilities. Reason provided:
prerequisite work. “Prerequisite design work involved the
determination of routing and service options. There was confusion
over who was responsible. There were delays on the part of TU
Electric due to the absence of key people.” Failure to specify who
was to do what prevented requesting a specific commitment from
TU Electric. If TU Electric refused to make that commitment,
Civil could have refused to accept its action item until receipt of
their input. If TU Electric had committed, Civil might have been
informed when key people were absent.
Low PPC was attributed by some members of the management team to the lack of a
construction start date, and the consequent use by suppliers of resources on more urgent
projects. The high percentage of plan failures due to conflicting demands appears to be
supportive of this claim. However, this reasons analysis exercise and observation of
teleconferences suggests that contributing causes were failure to apply quality criteria to

assignments and failure to learn from plan failures through analysis and action on
reasons.
6.3 The Nature of the Design Process and Implications for Process
Control
'Making' has the job of conforming to requirements. Design produces those
requirements. If there were complete predictability of design's output, design would
generate no value. Consequently, variability plays a different role in design as opposed to
construction (Reinertsen, 1997). This raises the question of the type of control
appropriate to generative processes like design.
Let us first consider more closely the nature of the design process. Consider the task
of producing a piping isometric drawing versus the task of doing a piping layout for a
given area. In order to do the layout, the designer must know where other objects are
located in the space. She must know locations, dimensions, material compositions, and
operating characteristics of end-points. Some of these constraints and conditions of her
problem will not change. Some may well change in response to her difficulty achieving a
satisfactory solution. Consequently, the final piping layout will emerge from a process of
negotiation and adjustment, which cannot be determined in advance.
An example from the Next Stage case illustrates the point. The design team was
faced with selecting the theater seats, which might appear at first glance to be a fairly
simple problem of applying criteria derivative from the general level of 'quality' desired in
the facility balanced against the purchase price of the seats. In fact, the criteria are far
from straightforward or simple. Seats can either be mounted on the floor or riser-

mounted, the choice between them being interdependent with the structural pads for the
seats, which in turn constrains choices regarding the return air plenum, which can either
go through the floor or risers. That choice in turn impacts cleaning time and cost: how
quickly can they set up for the next show? As it happens, chairs come with different
types of upholstery, which can change the amount and type of smoke to be removed.
Components such as chairs may not be offered in all varieties; e.g., although we
might prefer a riser-mounted chair, such chairs only come with a certain type of
upholstery that would overload current plans for smoke removal. Everything's connected
to everything. We are designing one whole, so parts have the logic of part to whole,
potentially conflicting properties, etc. Product design decisions can impact the entire
range of 'ilties': buildability, operability, maintainability, etc., etc. In this case, delay in
selecting chairs delayed final determination of structural geometry, which in turn delayed
completion of the 3D model of the structure.
Overly 'rationalistic' models of problem solving processes are inappropriate for the
design process, which rather oscillates between criteria and alternatives, as in a good
conversation from which everyone learns (See Conklin and Weil's "Wicked Problems"
for another presentation of this idea.). In their Soft Systems Methodology, Checkland and
Scholes offer the same critique of 'hard' systems thinking as applied to action research;
i.e., such thinking failed because it assumed that objectives were defined and the task was
simply to determine how to achieve those objectives. Rather than conceiving the project
process to consist of determining design criteria then applying those criteria in the
production of the design, design should be conceived as a value generating process
dedicated to the progressive determination of both ends and means.

Specialization is essential for successful design. No one can understand in detail all
the different types of criteria, constraints, and alternatives that might be considered.
However, specialists tend toward suboptimization because they become advocates for
what they understand to be important, often without sufficient understanding of what
else is important24. Specialists are often advocates for the priority of specific criteria!
Given this value generating nature of design, controls based on the model of after-
the-fact detection of negative variances inevitably focus entirely on controlling time and
cost, leaving design quality as the dependent variable (p.199, Reinertsen, 1997). What is
needed is a production control system that explodes tasks near in time to their
performance, one that counteracts the tendency to suboptimization by explicitly focusing
common attention on design criteria, one that facilitates value generation and information
flow among specialists; i.e., the Last Planner system.
6.4 Evaluation of Last Planner Implementation
Four Next Stage project managers evaluated implementation and effectiveness of the
Last Planner system in response to a short survey produced by the author. The four rated
Last Planner effectiveness relative to traditional forms of project control 5, 5, 6, and 7 on
a scale of 1 to 7, which is equivalent to saying that Last Planner was 44% more effective
than traditional practice. However, examination of actual practice on the project suggests
tremendous opportunity for further improvement.
Plus: -attempted to select only assignments needed to release other work
-measured and communicated PPC and reasons
24
See Lloyd, et al., 1997 for the tendency to see one's task in terms of one's 'product'
rather than in terms of participating in an iterative, interactive, evolving process.

Minus: -minimal preparation of participants
-no work flow control and make ready process
-poor definition of assignments
-no action on reasons
Each action item was determined completed or incomplete, and reasons were selected
from the list of categories. However, no analysis of reasons was done, either during or
between teleconferences. There was also no apparent attempt to act on the reasons that
were identified. Work selection was tested against the ‘pull’ requirement by asking why
it was needed to be done now, but rarely were assignments rejected for unsoundness or
size. Frequently, it appeared that assignments were accepted with the implicit
commitment to do one’s best rather than an explicit commitment to complete based on
knowledge of the execution process, understanding of relevant criteria, identification of
needed informational inputs, and allocation of necessary resources. Assignments were
not systematically exploded into an operations level of detail and, consequently, the
interdependence of assignments was often not understood.
In summary, Next Stage did not fully change its production control system from the
traditional, and either did not implement or did not implement completely the elements of
the Last Planner system; i.e., work flow control, production unit control, and a learning
process. Nonetheless, the Next Stage experience was valuable for its contributions to
learning and further development of the Last Planner System. Much has been learned
and developed since the Next Stage case. Opportunities and needs for the future are well
summarized by Ed Beck, Linbeck project manager, in the following response to the
author's survey question: What improvements in LPS (Last Planner System) objectives,
procedures, or implementation do you suggest for future projects?

q Client buy-in at the user level
q Complete orientation of all participants
q A simpler value stream
q A more systematic format
q A better list of reasons to categorize planning failures
q Utilization of the 5 why's
q Utilization of the 6 week lookahead
q A more expeditious way to meet and create a weekly plan
q Periodic revisiting of the value stream
q Publishing graphs and reasons and answers to questions to all
q A tune-up meeting at strategic times along the course of the project
q Periodic assessment comparing what is happening versus what normally happens.
6.5 Learnings
The Next Stage case study reinforced the need to improve plan reliability in design
processes and also suggested improvements to the production control system required to
achieve better plan reliability.
-make sure project management understands the production control system and
its objectives
-provide additional training to participants
-include ‘puller’ on action item log
-explode scheduled activities using the Activity Definition Model; i.e., specify the
process to be used to complete an assignment, the directives or criteria to which

it must conform, the prerequisite work needed from others, and the resources
necessary to do the work.
-establish a lookahead window with screening criteria for advancement
-track the status of assignments as they move through the lookahead window
-adopt a sizing criterion for assignments that consistently demands less output
from production units than their estimated capacity to accommodate variability in
capacity. (This seems especially important for design. Other studies suggest that
routinely 20% of capacity is used to do needed but previously undefined work
each week.)
-improve the categorization of reasons and reasons analysis to facilitate
implementation of the learning process, which consists of: analyze reasons to
actionable causes, assign or take corrective action, and record results.

CHAPTER SEVEN: CASE THREE-PACIFIC
CONTRACTING
Pacific Contracting is a speciality contractor primarily involved in design and installation
of building envelopes; i.e., cladding and roofing systems. The author began working with
the company in 1995 as a consultant. Subsequently, Pacific Contracting became a charter
member of the Lean Construction Institute and its President, Todd Zabelle, became an
LCI partner.
Implementation of the Last Planner system by a speciality contractor is important for
several reasons. First of all, specialists work for many general contractors, not all of
whom may endorse the Last Planner principles and objectives. Secondly, the specialist
has a different role in the production system than does a general contractor or
construction manager. The latter's role is primarily to coordinate production, but the
production itself is done by specialists, even if they are directly employed by the general
contractor. Drawing on a manufacturing analogy, the speciality contractor is like a job
shop, while the coordinator is like an assembler. Many of the functions of the Last
Planner system, such as matching load to capacity, fall more particularly on the specialist,
whether design or construction, than on the coordinator of design or construction
processes.

7.2 PPC and Reasons
Pacific Contracting, using the latest tools and techniques developed by the author,
participated in the effort to discover how to improve PPC to and above the 90% level, an
LCI research project. The data collection period extended for 41 weeks, ending in mid-
October, 199925. As can be seen from Figure 7.1, there appears to have been a period of
improvement through Week 19, then a decline followed by another upward trend
through Week 28, followed by a brief period of decline, with finally another upward
trend through the period of data collection.
Figure 7.1
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ee 0
W 12
W 14
W 16
W 18
W 20
W 22
W 24
W 26
W 28
W 30
W 32
W 34
W 36
W 38
40
4
8
1
k
k
ee
ee
ee
k
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
ee
W
PercentPlanComplete90%43%67% 4WeekMovingAverage
Pacific Contracting-PPC
25
The LCI research on improving PPC continued beyond the data collection period
reported in this dissertation.

A possible explanation for the decline is that a very small number of assignments were
actually made ready in time to be placed on weekly work plans, so that a single
noncompletion registered as a relatively large percentage of failures. As shown in Table
7.1, from Week 17 through Week 23, no more than 4 tasks were assigned on weekly
work plans. From Week 19 through 23, at least one weekly assignment was not
completed, limiting PPC to a maximum of 75%. This likely impact of lookahead planning
on PPC adds impetus to the need for future development of metrics specifically for the
lookahead process and its improvement.
Table 7.1
Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Percent Plan Complete 90% 43% 67% 50% 67% 100% 69% 100%
4 Week Moving Average 0% 0% 0% 65% 58% 70% 71% 79%
Activities Scheduled 10 7 9 8 12 8 13 5
Activities Complete 9 3 6 4 8 8 9 5
Total Incompletions 1 4 3 4 4 0 4 0
Client 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Engineering 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Materials 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pre-Requisite 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
Subcontractor 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 0
Plan 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Week 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Client 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Plan 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
Weather 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
Week 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Client 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0
Plan 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Week 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
Client 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
Materials 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plan 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Week 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41
Percent Plan Complete80% 100% 86% 90% 100% 71% 79% 82% 92%
4 Week Moving Average65% 73% 78% 88% 91% 86% 83% 81% 82%
Activities Scheduled 5 2 7 10 4 7 14 11 12
Activities Complete 4 2 6 9 4 5 11 9 11
Total Incompletions 1 0 1 1 0 2 3 2 1
Activities Scheduled 5 2 7 10 4 7 14 11 12
Client 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Materials 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Craft 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0
Pre-Requisite 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Subcontractor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Plan 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0
Weather 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Pacific Contracting-PPC Data and Reasons
Pacific Contracting categorized reasons for noncompletion of weekly assignments in
terms of Client, Engineering, Materials, Equipment, Craft, Prerequisite Work,
Subcontractor, Plan, or Weather. Bret Zabelle, Operations Manager for Pacific
Contracting, provided the following comments regarding their reasons categories:
"As I started to write our definition of engineering as a reason, I had a moment of
clarity. Engineering cannot be a reason. You either have the engineering for a
task complete or you don't. If you don't have the engineering complete, the task
should not be scheduled on a work plan. The only instances I can think of for
engineering is miscalculation of quantities, structural collapse or failure.
"Craft:When all the resources are available to perform a task on the WWP
(weekly work plan) and the craft workers do something different. Also refers to
craft absenteeism.

"Subcontractor: This is similar to engineering as a reason. If we have
a subcontractor who did not complete prerequisite work in front of us, we should
not put our activity on the WWP until it is available. Also refers to fabricators.
They promise components will be fabricated by a certain date and fail.
"Plan: Planning failures occur when we do stupid things like schedule
activities if the engineering is not complete, materials, tools and workers are not
available, our own subcontractors or other contractors have not completed
prerequisite activities. Sometimes we schedule tasks that are more complex than
we thought."
Considering reasons for failures to complete weekly assignments, as shown in Table 7.1
and also graphically in Figure 7.2, much the most common reason was "Plan", Pacific
Contracting's own disregard of assignment quality criteria or inability to understand how
the planned work was to be done, and to anticipate all the steps and resources necessary.
The next most frequent reason was errors of some sort in execution of assignments by
Pacific Contracting's craft supervisors and workers.
Altogether, the vast majority of weekly work plan failures were well within the
control of Pacific Contracting. However, it should be remembered that matters might be
just the opposite as regards the lookahead process which makes ready assignments for
selection in weekly work plans. Again, we are reminded of the importance of measuring
and analyzing lookahead process performance.

Figure 7.2
Weather Client
Engineering
Materials
Plan Equipment
Craft
Pre-Requisite
Subcontractor
Pacific Contracting-Reasons
7.3 Observations
During the period of data collection, Pacific Contracting did not work with a single
general contractor that embraced the Last Planner system. Specialists appear to have
tremendous difficulty achieving high levels of PPC when not working on 'last planner'
projects. The consequent lack of resource utilization is a waste the recovery of which
could contribute to faster or more projects. On the other side of the matter, speciality
contractor efforts to avoid that waste seem inevitably to decrease both plan reliability and
progress of projects as seen from the perspective of project coordinators.
Once work is available to speciality contractors, they appear-based on this one
instance-to be able to achieve a relatively high level of plan reliability, limited mostly by
their own ability to plan and execute.

7.4 Learnings
For speciality contractors to increase plan reliability to the 90% level and above requires
that the coordinators of the projects on which they work embrace the Last Planner
system's objectives and especially the lookahead process, which is dedicated to making
tasks ready for assignment and to balancing load and capacity. For their part, speciality
contractors must adhere to the discipline of Last Planner rules and perhaps also use the
technique of first run studies26 more consistently and well.
26
First run studies are extensive planning of upcoming operations by a cross functional
team including representatives of those who are to do the first operation, followed
by methodical study, redesign of the operation, and retrial until a standard is
established to meet or beat for execution of that operation. First run studies follow
the Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, made popular by W. Edwards Deming.

CHAPTER EIGHT: CASE FOUR-OLD CHEMISTRY
BUILDING RENOVATION PROJECT
Linbeck Construction, a founding member of the Lean Construction Institute, was the
general contractor for Rice University's Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project in
Houston, Texas. Linbeck brought John Pasch, Rice's facilities manager, to the Neenan
Company's annual winter conference in 1998. At that conference, James Womack spoke
on the need and opportunity to extend lean production (manufacturing) concepts and
techniques to the construction industry and Greg Howell27 shared the Lean Construction
Institute's vision of that application. John was sufficiently impressed that he allowed
Linbeck to negotiate with its primary subcontractors rather than competitively bid them
as had been the University's practice. At this point, a substantial building program stood
in the offing and Linbeck was one of three contractors competing for the lion's share.
Kathy Jones, Linbeck's project manager, had the author conduct several educational
and training sessions with project personnel, including the architect. Unfortunately, the
architect refused to participate in the Last Planner system. However, the subcontractors
became totally committed and enthusiastic about the planning process during the course
of the job, as did Rice University's personnel. The project was completed to a very
aggressive schedule to the satisfaction of users and within the budget. Rice University
was so well pleased with the performance that Linbeck won its Fondren Library Project,
and is well situated to do roughly half a billion dollars worth of work in the Rice
Program over the next several years.

8.2 PPC and Reasons
The author facilitated team scheduling exercises that produced an overall project
schedule, then a more detailed schedule for the initial phase of work and the design
development needed to support it. That phase schedule became the driver for weekly
work planning, the results of which are shown in Figure 8.1.
Over a period of approximately eleven weeks, PPC rose to a level of 85% or so, then
stabilized at that level for the duration of the project. This was an unprecedented
accomplishment at the time, and resulted from the dedication of the owner, general
contractor, and subcontractor personnel to the Last Planner System and its goal of plan
reliability. Kathy Jones reinforced the Last Planner principles by fining those who used
the expression 'I hope' or 'hopefully' in connection with a commitment to do work. (The
fine was a six pack of beer to be collected at the project-ending celebration.) The project
manager for one subcontractor volunteered at an LCI research workshop that "It's fun to
go to work now!"
27
Co-founder with the author of the Lean Construction Institute in August, 1997.

Figure 8.1
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
PPC
50.0%
4 Wk Mvg Ave.
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Old Chemistry Building-PPC
Table 8.1
Date 1/25/99 2/1/99 2/8/99 2/15/99 2/22/99 2/29/99 3/8/99 3/15/99 3/22/99 3/29/99 4/5/99 4/12/99 4/19/99 4/26/99
Tasks 20 38 40 48 49 44 46 46 56 57 71 66 66 66
Completed
Tasks 39 55 49 57 61 60 57 57 66 66 77 76 75 82
Assigned
Date 5/3/99 5/10/99 5/17/99 5/24/99 6/1/99 6/7/99 6/14/99 6/21/99 6/28/99 7/6/99 7/12/99 7/19/99 7/26/99
Tasks 60 53 65 64 50 55 65 69 62 62 66 63 73
Completed
Tasks 64 62 72 69 56 64 72 80 67 83 76 71 80
Assigned
Date 8/2/99 8/9/99

Tasks Completed 59 53
Tasks Assigned 67 65
Old Chemistry Building-PPC Data

Of the relatively few failures to complete weekly assignments, most were caused by lack
of manpower or failure to complete prerequisite work ("make ready"). As this occurred
during a building boom in the Houston area, the low frequency of manpower problems is
a testament to the subcontractors' dedication to the project.
The remaining reasons categories were Schedule Accuracy (the assignment shouldn't
have been made), Material Deliveries, Design Coordination, Equipment (part of the
building, not construction equipment), Rework, Weather, and Overcrowding.
Figure 8.2
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
k
.
er
cy
ng
dy
er
.
el
rd
el
or
.D
w
th
ra
ea
'l D
di
oo
ew
po
ea
cu
w
pt
R
.C
at
ro
R
an
W
Eq
Ac
e
rc
es
ak
M
ve
d.
D
M
he
O
Sc
Old Chemistry Building-Reasons for Noncompletions
8.3 Observations
Lack of participation by the architect was a serious deficiency on the project, perhaps
concealed by the high PPC and low incidence of design coordination as a reason for
failing to complete weekly work plan assignments. Design problems did impact the job,
but that impact would only be evident in schedule changes and in the lookahead process.

Unfortunately, the lookahead process was not fully and formally developed on this
project, in part because it was still being defined and its techniques created at the time
Old Chemistry was initiated.
Linbeck intends to extend the Last Planner System to the design phase of the
Fondren Library Project, and has Rice University's agreement to keep the same
subcontractors in place for that project. This commercial alliance among Linbeck and its
'preferred' suppliers is a critical component in the recipe for success.
8.4 Learnings
On the positive side, the Old Chemistry Building Renovation Project demonstrated that
PPC could be maintained consistently at a level of 85% through development and
nurturing of teamwork and the subsequent team enforcement of norms and rules. The
commercial success of the general contractor and its subcontractors indicates the power
and impact of increasing plan reliability. Specific techniques that were trialed successfully
on this project included team scheduling, specifically team production of detailed phase
schedules, resulting from intense negotiation among the speciality contractors
themselves, within a schedule framework established by the general contractor.
As for things that might be done better on future projects, implementation of Last
Planner in design and involvement of design professionals is certainly number one. Lesser
issues, but still important, include the need for a more transparent lookahead process and
the need for more explicit learning from analysis and action on reasons for failures.

CHAPTER NINE: CASE FIVE-ZENECA PROJECT
9.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LAST PLANNER IMPLEMENTATION
Barnes Construction is a member of the Lean Construction Institute and is embarked on
transforming itself into a lean organization. Part of that transformation is to be achieved
by implementation and perfection of the Last Planner system of production control.
Implementation of the Last Planner system began with classroom training, followed by
site visits and coaching, all provided by the author.
Zeneca is a biotechnology company located in Richmond, California near San
Francisco. The Zeneca Project reported here is one of a series of seismic retrofits of
laboratory and office buildings being performed by Barnes. Of all the cases included in
this dissertation, the Barnes case incorporates most of all previous learnings and the
latest developments in technique and implementation. One of the critical improvements
to be seen is in the methodical analysis and removal of constraints from scheduled tasks.
9.2 PPC AND REASONS
As shown in Figure 9.1, the period of data collection extended from the week of 6/26/99
through the week of 10/11/99. It appears that PPC gradually improved throughout that
period until culminating in four consecutive weeks in which PPC measured 100%.

Figure 9.1
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
6/28/99 7/6/99 7/12/99 7/19/99 7/26/99 8/2/99 8/9/99 8/16/99 8/23/99 8/30/99 9/7/99 9/13/99 9/20/99 9/27/99 10/4/99 10/11/99 10/18/99 10/25/99 11/1/99
PPC 4 Wk Mvg Ave
Zeneca-PPC
With such a high percentage of weekly assignments completed, there were relatively few
Figure 9.2
Sub Manpower Decided to hold off

6% 6% Pulled from wrong week
Installation Error 6%
6%
Space conflict
11%
Not Defined
16%
Theft of Bobcat wheel

6%
Design
11%
Prerequisite Work
32%
Zeneca-Reasons

noncompletions, and so few occasions for identifying reasons for noncompletions. Such
as were identified are shown in Figure 9.2.
9.3 CONSTRAINT ANALYSIS AND MAKE READY
The technique of constraints analysis, pioneered on the CCSR Project, became a key tool
in Zeneca's success. As originally envisioned, status information regarding constraints
was collected each week on all tasks scheduled to start within the next 6 weeks. Notes
and action items were added to the constraint analysis form to serve as a reminder to
various parties regarding the actions they needed to take to make tasks ready in time to
be performed. The primary rule applied to this lookahead process was to only allow tasks
to retain their scheduled starts if the planners were confident they could be made ready in
time. Otherwise, they were to appeal for help to higher levels of their organizations, then,
if make ready actions indeed could not be taken in time, defer the task until it could be
made ready.
Following is a statement, by this writer, of the directives governing the Last Planner
system installation and execution at Barnes:
Barnes Production Control Requirements
1. Hold weekly subcontractor coordination meetings on each project. Insist

subcontractors give input into weekly work plans and lookahead schedules.
2. Select weekly work plan assignments from those that meet quality criteria of
definition, soundness, sequence, and size. Issue weekly work plans and expect
every superintendent and foreman to have them in their pocket. Use the weekly
work plan form and be sure to complete all sections, including make ready needs
and workable backlog. When assigned tasks extend beyond one week, specify
what work is to be completed within the week.
3. Each week, calculate the percent plan complete (PPC) for the previous week and
identify reasons for each assignment that was not completed. Try to get to root

or actionable causes. Don't beat people up for plan failure, but insist that they
learn from their experience.
4. Maintain a 5 week lookahead schedule at a level of detail needed to identify make
ready needs. Add 1 week each week.
5. Do constraints analysis on each activity on the 5 week lookahead schedule, using
the constraints analysis form. Remember to mark an activity as unconstrained
only if you have positive knowledge that the constraint does not exist or has been
removed ('guilty until proven innocent').
6. Each week, email or fax the constraints analysis form to each subcontractor that
has activities scheduled on the lookahead and ask them to provide status
information.
7. Assign make ready actions as appropriate; e.g., the technical engineer will resolve
RFIs, the project sponsor will expedite outstanding payments, the project
controls manager will deal with contract and change order issues, etc. Obviously,
subcontractors will also have make ready tasks such as generating submittals,
expediting fabrication and deliveries, acquiring necessary equipment and tools,
reserving labor, etc.
8. Maintain a statused and current master project schedule.
9. Involve subcontractors in producing master and phase schedules. Phase schedules
are detailed plans for completing a specific phase of project work; e.g., site
preparation, foundations, superstructure, skin, etc. Use the team scheduling
technique in which participants describe activities on sheets that they stick on a
wall, then negotiate details, sequencing, etc.
Project Checklist
1. Does the project hold weekly subcontractor coordinating meetings?

2. Are weekly work plan forms completed each week, including make ready needs
and workable backlog?
3. Are weekly assignments adequately defined; e.g., is the work to be completed
during the week specified?
4. Are weekly work plans used in the field; e.g., does every foreman and
superintendent carry it with them?
5. Are weekly work plans reviewed in the coordinating meetings, PPC calculated,
and reasons identified?
6. Is a 5 week lookahead schedule maintained, with one week added each week?
7. Are subcontractors requested each week to provide status information regarding
constraints on the activities listed on the project lookahead schedule?
8. Which subcontractors provide information each week for constraints analysis?
Which subcontractors don't?
9. Are make ready actions assigned each week?
10. What people carry out their make ready assignments? Who doesn't?
11. Is the rule followed that activities keep their scheduled dates only if the planner is
confident they can be made ready in time?
12. Of those activities scheduled to start within the next 3 weeks, what percentage
are not made ready?

13. Is the rule followed to only allow activities onto weekly work plans that have had
all constraints removed that could be removed before the start of the plan week?
14. What is the project's PPC? Is it rising, falling, or staying the same?
15. What are the dominant reasons for failing to complete assignments on weekly
work plans?
16. Is a master project schedule and phase schedule maintained current and updated
once a week?
17. Are subcontractors involved in producing master and phase schedules using team
scheduling?
Table 9.1
Activity Activity Description Planned Start

Responsible
Contract / Design Materials LaborEquipment Prereq Weather
ID Date Change Orders

Party AE CompleteSubmittals RFI's Work
E-20 First Floor
Install dowel template 12-Aug NLB X X X X X X X Above X
Pour mat slab @E-10 17-Aug NLB X X X X Concrete X X Above X
Move tower shoring to E-14

23-Aug Safway X X X X X X Crane Above X
Hard demo (Beams) 30-Aug Cal-Wrecking

X X X X X X X Above X
One side walls 13-Sep Peck & Hiller

X X X X X X X Collectors X
Install wall rebar 16-Sep McGrathX X X X X X X Above X
Epoxy dowels 22-Sep NLB X X X X X X X Above X
Pull Test 23-Sep ICI X X X X X X X Above X
Close forms 24-Sep Peck & Hiller

X X X X X X X Above X
E-10 E-10
Fir First Floor
Install tower shoring 23-Aug Safway X X X X X X Crane Cure X
Excavate footing 13-Sep Cal-Wrecking

X X X Possible footing resize
X X Collectors X
Chip footings if necessary

16-Sep Cal-Wrecking
X X XIf necessary X X X X X
Drill and epoxy dowels @mat

16-Sep NLB X X X X X X X X X
Install rebar @mat 17-Sep McGrathX X X X X X X Above X
Rebar template 24-Sep NLB X X X X X X X Above X
Zeneca-Constraint Analysis Form

9.4 OBSERVATIONS
The extremely high level of plan reliability achieved on Zeneca may have resulted in part
from its being relatively simple, not technically but rather operationally. A relatively few
subcontractors were involved28, and few were required to work in close proximity, either
temporally or spatially. On the other hand, the production control processes and
techniques employed appear also to have made a contribution. Apart from the Old
Chemistry Building Renovation Project, in no other case were subcontractors more
intimately involved in the lookahead process or in weekly work planning. Further, the
contractor's execution of the lookahead process, particularly constraints analysis and
assignment of action items to remove constraints, was much more rigorous than on
previous projects.
9.5 LEARNINGS
It is possible to achieve PPC levels above 90% over an extended period of time through
consistent implementation of Last Planner system techniques. Especially important in
28
Once the rebar installation was well underway, rarely were more than 5 subcontractors
scheduled to work on the project in any week. Safway-shoring, McGrath-rebar
installation, ICI-rebar inspection, Peck & Hiller-formwork, Cal-Wrecking-
demolition, National-concrete coring. By contrast, on an interiors project underway
at the same time, an average of 10 subcontractors were given assignments each
week.

this regard are constraint analysis and subcontractor participation in planning and
control.

CHAPTER TEN: CONCLUSIONS
10.1 Summary of Case Study Results
Data collection for the five case studies was concluded in the following order and dates,
all within the period in which this dissertation was in progress:
q Case One-CCSR Project Jan-Mar '98
q Case Two-Next Stage July-Nov '98
q Case Three-Pacific Contracting Jan-Oct '99
q Case Four-Old Chemistry Building Renovation Feb-Aug '99
q Case Five-Zeneca June-Oct '99
CCSR addressed the question how to apply the Last Planner system to subcontracted
projects as distinct from the direct hire production to which for the most part it had
previously been applied. The application was successful and piloted constraints analysis
as a tool for evaluating the readiness of potential assignments and for identifying the
actions needed to make them ready.
Next Stage was an exploratory case study on the application of Last Planner to
design. Interruption of the project prevents drawing firm conclusions, however
participants considered the Last Planner system successful and superior to traditional
methods of project control. Numerous learnings were drawn from the case, perhaps the
most important being the need to explode design tasks into operational detail near in time
to their execution, in order to accommodate the self-generating characteristic of the
design process. The Activity Definition Model was created for that purpose and has
subsequently been applied extensively for the purpose of task explosion.

The Pacific Contracting case explored the limitations faced by a speciality contractor
trying to unilaterally apply the Last Planner system. Diligent adherence to system rules
allowed the contractor to achieve an average 76% PPC level. However, several periods
of precipitously lower performance appear to have been correlated with failure of their
customer projects to make work ready when scheduled, reducing the amount of work
available to Pacific Contracting and consequently making them vulnerable to low PPC
should they experience any plan failures at all. Another interesting finding was that plan
failures within their control tended to be primarily from lack of detailed, advance
operations design. Pacific Contracting has rededicated themselves to the routine use of
First Run Studies in response to this finding.
The Old Chemistry Building Renovation case revealed a sustained PPC of 85%. With
the opportunity to benefit from previous cases, the project team also added a very
successful education and team building component to achieve this breakthrough result.
The fifth and last case study, Barnes Construction's Zeneca Project, sustained a PPC
near 100%, apparently settling the question whether or not that level of plan reliability
can be achieved. It is not suggested that every project will be able to achieve the same
results even should they imitate Zeneca's rigorous application of Last Planner rules and
techniques. The relatively few subcontractors involved during the measurement period
may have simplified the coordination problem beyond the norm. However, the extensive
involvement of subcontractors in planning and constraints analysis is a model to be
imitated by all.
10.2 Research Question: What can be done by way of tools provided and
control to increase plan reliability above the 70% PPC level?

Review of the case studies suggests that plan reliability improves with adherence to the
Last Planner system rules, with extensive education and involvement of participants, and
with use of techniques such as task explosion, constraints analysis, make ready actions,
shielding production from uncertainty through selection of quality assignments, and
identification and action on reasons for failing to complete assigned tasks. The PPC
levels recorded were significantly better than previous measurements. Previously,
measured PPC above 70% was very rare (Ballard and Howell, 1997). In the latter three
case studies, all achieved PPC levels of 76% or higher, with Zeneca consistently above
90%.
10.3 Research Question: How/Can Last Planner be successfully applied

to increase plan reliability during design processes?
Evidence for settling this question is not so decisive. The exploratory case suggested but
did not confirm that Last Planner can effectively be applied to design production control.
However, the Last Planner system as now developed appears to be precisely matched to
the nature of the design process. Unlike making, which covers a wide range of tasks,
including making multiple copies of a single design, design itself is essentially generative.
As such, a process control system is required that does not assume a simple matching of
criteria and design alternatives, but rather facilitates a progressive, dialectical
development of both.
Perhaps the most valuable contribution of the case was its clarification of the nature
of the design process and consequently of the obstacles to management control. The
primary response to those obstacles has been the development and implementation of the
Activity Definition Model as a technique for exploding design tasks as they enter the

lookahead process. Ideas and suggestions for further research on this question are
described below.
10.4 Directions for Future Research
The case studies suggest the need for further modifications to the Last Planner System,
some specifically intended to make it better fit design applications and others for general
improvement. The prevalence of confusion over directives as a reason for plan failure in
the Next Stage case study indicates a need for more explicit specification of the
directives governing design tasks. A tool for making that specification is the Activity
Definition Model29 shown in Figure 10.1.
Figure 10.1
Activity Definition Model

Redo
No
Meets Yes
Directives Release
Criteria?
Prerequisite
Process Output
Work
Resources
Activity Definition Model
ACTIVITY DEFINITION
OUTPUT represents the result or deliverable produced by performing the scheduled
activity. In the case of complex deliverables, a process flow diagram is created and each
of its deliverables is decomposed using the same activity definition model.

What are the DIRECTIVES governing my output, process, and inputs? To what
criteria must my output conform in order to serve the needs of our customer production
units? What PREREQUISITES do I need from others? What RESOURCES do I need to
allocate to this assignment?
Before releasing the output to the PUs that need it, it is to be evaluated against the
criteria and , if nonconforming, either the criteria are revised based on new insights into
customer or stakeholder needs, or the output is revised to better meet the criteria30.
JOINT SUPPLIER/CUSTOMER ASSIGNMENTS
A critical element for success is explicit agreement between ‘customer’ and ‘supplier’
regarding those criteria. The PU producing the output should understand how it is to be
used by the customer PUs before production. Subsequently, inspection can be either by
the producer or jointly by producer and customer.
Self-inspection and joint supplier/customer inspection are key concepts in the method
of in-process inspection, which reduces defects through empowerment of the workers
themselves, as opposed to exclusive reliance on external inspectors. This quality
assurance prior to releasing work between PUs has been extended by some lean
contractors to the progressing of work. Only products and installations that have passed
quality control inspection can be counted as completed work, and then only if they are in
the work packages (batches) needed by the customer PUs.
29
Although developed independently by this author in the mid-1980s, the Activity
Definition Model is similar to IDEF, although arguably the concept of "directives" is
different from the IDEF concept of "constraints".
30
Conformance of outputs to design criteria is not a matter of matching. It is rather the
exception than the rule that any design alternative maximally satisfies all the multiple
criteria. The question is rather at what level of value must tradeoffs be made among

Recognizing the critical need for the supplier process and the customer process to
agree on directives, and the objective of selecting and executing only those assignments
that release work to others, it is proposed to make the supplier and customer jointly
responsible for successful completion of assignments. The supplier should make sure
he/she understands what the customer needs. The customer equally should make sure the
supplier understands what he/she needs. Aside from assignments generated by push
scheduling, in the absence of an explicit pull signal from the customer, the supplier can
assume that the task does not need to be performed at this time.
REASONS CATEGORIZATION AND ANALYSIS
The reasons categories used on the Next Stage Project did not promote identification of
root causes. Consequently, it is proposed to use the elements of the Activity Definition
Model as the primary categories and also to provide a guide for reasons analysis that will
facilitate identification of actionable causes.
those competing criteria. Exploration of such issues is part of the future research
agenda beyond the scope of this thesis.

Figure 10.2
Directives-related Plan
Failures
A-1: I didn't A-2: The directives

Why did understand the real
criteria were incorrect.
criteria for my
change deliverable.
during the
week?
What A.1.1: Didn't Why didn't A.2.1: Incorrect
could be understand what the you specification of What
done to requestor needed and understand prerequisites. changes
avoid the why she wanted it. what the in
need for requestor A.2.2: Incorrect directives
A.1.2: Didn't needed or specification of
change or are
understand the the resources.
to find out needed?
applicable applicable
about the A.2.3: Incorrect Who can
requirements. requiremen
change specification of make the
and ts? What changes?
A.1.3: Redefinition of processes.
include in would
criteria occurred prevent A.2.4: Incorrect
your specification of
during the plan week. repetition?
weekly output.
planning?
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Directives
The primary categories are directives, prerequisites, resources, and process. Once placed
within one of these categories, a plan failure can be analyzed in accordance with the
guidelines expressed in Figures 10.2-10.5.

Figure 10.3
Prerequisites-related Plan Failures
B.1: Didn't request B.2: B.3: Promise not B.4: Can't make an
needed Incomplete kept by provider of agreement with
prerequisites. request. prerequisite. supplier
Analyze B.3 cases by

starting over again,
selecting A, B, C, or D,
B.2.b: Failed to and carrying out the Why can't
B.1a: Didn't know it identify the provider. analysis. But this time, you make
was needed. B.2.c: Failed to the failure being an
specify content. analyzed is that of the agreement
B.1.b: Knew it was prerequisite provider with the
needed, but didn't B.2.d: Failed to who failed to keep his supplier?
make the request. specify delivery time. promise rather than
B.2.e: Failed to the Last Planner who
Why didn't you know provide sufficient failed to complete an
that prerequisite was lead time assignment because
needed or why didn't
you make the request.
Regarding each of the that provider failed to
above, ask what caused keep his promise.
What would prevent
the failure and what could
repetitions?
prevent it reoccurring.
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Prerequisites

Figure 10.4
Resources-related
Plan Failures
C.1: Lack of C.2: Insufficient labor

equipment or or time
tools
C.2.a: Didn't C.2.b: Labor was requested

request and allocated but not
C.1.a: enough labor available when needed.
Breakdown or time
(Ask what C.2.b.2:
could be done C.2.b.1: Got Absenteeism (Ask
to prevent C.2.a.1: Didn't bumped by why absence was
breakdowns.) understand higher priority not known in
load. (Ask why
C.1.b: advance; if absence
priority was was avoidable.)
Overloaded
C.2.a.b: Didn't not known in
(Ask why loads
understand advance.) Ask why the priority changed,
were not
capacity. what could be done to avoid
integrated.)
the need for change, or what
could be done to include
knowledge of the change in
weekly planning.
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Resource

Figure 10.5
Process-related
Plan Failures
d.1 Error in processing d.2 Acts of God or

produced defective output the Devil produced
defective output
d.1.a Processing error was
caused by lack of skill
d.1.b Processing error was What went
Ask for the
caused by inadequate wrong? Why
cause of each
process wasn't it
cause; e.g.,
d.1.c Processing error was anticipated?
why was skill
caused by inadequate tools inadequate?
or equipment ...why was
d.1.d Processing error was process
caused by a change in the inadequate?
working environment
Reasons Analysis Hierarchy-Process
10.5 Conclusion
The Last Planner system of production control, improved through the case studies
included in this thesis, has been shown to be effective in achieving and maintaining plan
reliability above the 90% level in site installation. Applicability and effectiveness of the
Last Planner system to design remains to be definitively determined, however the
generative nature of the design process suggests that a control system such as Last
Planner is needed, as opposed to approaches that rely on push scheduling and early

selection from alternatives. Further development of the Last Planner system is suggested
regarding activity definition, joint supplier/customer assignments, and reasons analysis.
In addition, research is needed to quantify and understand the benefits of greater plan
reliability for safety, quality, time, and cost.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS31
activity definition model An input-process-output representation of design tasks,

supplemented by specification of criteria (entering the process rectangle
from above) and of resources (entering the process rectangle from below)
and an inspection process resulting either in redo or release to the customer
process. The model is used as a guide to exploding design tasks into a level
of detail at which their readiness for execution can be assessed and
advanced.
Redo
No
Meets Yes
Criteria Release
Criteria?
Input Process Output
Resources
assignment a directive or order given to a worker or workers directly producing or

contributing to the production of design or construction. Example: Scott,
you and Julie are to make the changes in wall locations detailed in memo
#123 by the end of the week. Anne, you find out what the building
authorities will require for a structural permit.
capacity the amount of work a production unit, whether individual or group, can
accomplish in a given amount of time. Example: Jim the engineer can
perform 10 piping stress analyses per day on average, but the analyses to be
done this week are particularly difficult. He will only be able to do 7. Jim’s
average capacity is 10, but his capacity for the specific work to be done this
week is 7.
commitment planning Planning that results in commitments to deliver on which others in

the production system can rely because they follow the rule that only sound
31
This glossary was produced specifically for this thesis. An expanded version, with
some modifications in definitions, is available at <www.leanconstruction.org>. It was
produced by this author and Iris Tommelein, LCI principal and Associate Professor
at the University of California at Berkeley.
Ballard G-12 Last Planner

assignments are to be accepted or made. Example: On my work plan for
next week, I have included providing Cheryl the soils data she needs to
evaluate alternative substructure systems for the building. All known
constraints have been removed from my task, I understand what’s required
and how the information will be used, and I have reserved needed labor and
equipment.
constraints something that stands in the way of a task being executable or sound.
Typical constraints on design tasks are inputs from others, clarity of criteria
for what is to be produced or provided, approvals or releases, and labor or
equipment resources. Screening tasks for readiness is assessing the status of
their constraints. Removing constraints is making a task ready to be
assigned.
control to cause events to conform to plan, or to initiate replanning and learning.

Example: Exploding master schedule activities into greater detail, screening
the resultant tasks against constraints, and acting to remove those
constraints are all control actions intended to cause events to conform to
plan, or to identify as early as practical the need for replanning. Learning is
initiated through analysis of reasons for failing to cause events to conform to
plan.
customer the user of one’s output. Example: John needs the results of our acoustical
tests in order to select the best location for his mechanical equipment. John
is our customer because he will use what we produce.
design Design is a type of goal-directed, reductive reasoning. There are always

many possible designs. Product design reasons from function to form.
Process design reasons from ends to means.
design criteria the characteristics required for acceptance of product or process design.
Example: The structural engineer needs both geometric and load inputs from
the architect, mechanical engineer, and electrical engineer. Loads need only
be accurate within 20%. Example: The cladding design must be consistent
with the architectural standards of the local historical society. In addition, it
must be within the 2 million pound budget and installable within a 6 week
window concluding no later than 6th April, 2000.
exploding expressing a task in greater detail, typically by producing a flow diagram of

the process of which the output is the task being exploded, then determining
the sub-tasks needed to make the task ready for assignment and execution
when scheduled. Sub-tasks are categorized in terms of the activity definition
model, resulting in actions to clarify or specify criteria, requests for inputs
from suppliers, and reservation of needed resources.
first run studies extensive planning of upcoming operations by a cross functional team
including representatives of those who are to do the first operation, followed

by methodical study, redesign of the operation, and retrial until a standard is
established to meet or beat for execution of that operation. First run studies
follow the Shewhart Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, made popular by W.
Edwards Deming.
last planner the person or group that makes assignments to direct workers. ‘Squad
boss’ and ‘discipline lead’ are common names for last planners in design
processes.
load the amount of output expected from a production unit or individual worker
within a given time. Within a weekly work plan, what is to be accomplished
by a design squad or individual designer, engineer, draftsperson, etc. A
quality assignment ‘loads’ a resource within its capacity.
lookahead planning The middle level in the planning system hierarchy, below front end
planning and above commitment-level planning, dedicated to controlling the
flow of work through the production system.
lookahead schedule the output of lookahead planning, resulting from exploding master
schedule activities by means of the activity definition model, screening the
resultant tasks before allowing entry into the lookahead window or
advancement within the window, and execution of actions needed to make
tasks ready for assignment when scheduled. Lookahead schedules may be
presented in list form or bar charts.
lookahead window how far ahead of scheduled start activities in the master schedule are
subjected to explosion, screening, or make ready. Typically design processes
have lookahead windows extending from 3 to 12 weeks into the future.
make ready take actions needed to remove constraints from assignments to make them
sound.
planning defining criteria for success and producing strategies for achieving
objectives.
plan reliability the extent to which a plan is an accurate forecast of future events,
measured by PPC. For example, if your weekly work plans have a 60% PPC,
they accurately predict completion/release of 60% of the weekly assignments.
PPC percent plan complete; i.e., the number of planned completions divided into
the number of actual completions.
prerequisite work work done by others on materials or information that serves as an

input or substrate for your work. Example: You need to know the surface
area of glass, provided by the architect, in order to size cooling equipment.

production unit(PU) a group of direct production workers that do or share
responsibility for similar work, drawing on the same skills and techniques.
Example: a team of electrical designers and engineers responsible for a
specific area or functions of a building.
productivity the ratio of the amount of work produced to the resources used in its
production. Example: x drawings per labour hour.
PU See production unit.
pulling initiating the delivery of materials or information based on the readiness of the
process into which they will enter for conversion into outputs. Example:
Request delivery of prerequisite information at or before the time you will be
ready to process that information. Note: what’s different here is that the
readiness of the process is known rather than wished. Either the process is
ready prior to requesting delivery or plan reliability is sufficiently high that
work plans can be used to predict readiness.
reasons…for failing to complete weekly assignments; e.g., lack of prerequisites,

insufficient time, unclear requirements. Reasons can also be sought for failing
to advance scheduled tasks from master schedule to lookahead schedule or
from one week to the next within the lookahead schedule.
resources labour or instruments of labour. Resources have production capacities as well

as costs. Consequently, materials and information are not resources, but rather
what resources act on or process.
screening determining the status of tasks in the lookahead window relative to their
constraints, and choosing to advance or retard tasks based on their constraint
status and the probability of removing constraints.
shielding..production units from uncertainty and variation by making only quality

assignments.
should-can-will-did to be effective, production management systems must tell us what

we should do and what we can do, so that we can decide what we will do,
then compare with what we did to improve our planning.
sizing…...assignments to the capacity of the production unit to do the work. Example:

Ruben and James should be able to collect that data and analyze it by
Thursday. But, I forgot, it’s Ruben and Tim. Tim’s not as experienced. I’d
better give them an extra day.
sound assignments that have had all constraints possible removed. Example: We
never make assignments that are not sound. We always check if we have or
can get necessary information from others, if the requirements are clear, etc.

supplier the provider of needed inputs; prerequisite work, materials, information,
resources, directives, etc.
supplier lead time the time from sending a request for delivery to the delivery.
underloading making assignments to a production unit or resource within a production

unit that absorbs less than 100% of its capacity. Underloading is necessary to
accommodate variation in processing time or production rate, in order to
assure plan reliability. Underloading is also done to release time for workers to
take part in training or learning, or for equipment to be maintained.
utilization the percentage of a resource’s capacity that is actually used. Example:

Because of time lost waiting for materials, our labour utilization last week was
only 40%.
weekly work plan a list of assignments to be completed within the specified week;
typically produced as near as possible to the beginning of the week.
window of reliability how far in advance future work completions can be accurately
forecast. Example: If you can accurately forecast only 1 day in advance when
work will be completed, then your window of reliability is 1 day.
workable backlog assignments that have met all quality criteria, except that some must
yet satisfy the sequence criterion by prior execution of prerequisite work
already scheduled. Other backlog assignments may be performed within a
range of time without interfering with other tasks. Example: Completing those
spare parts lists doesn’t have to be completed for 3 months, but it won’t harm
anything if they are produced earlier, so use them as fallback or fill-in work
when needed.
work flow the movement of information and materials through a network of production
units, each of which processes them before releasing to those downstream.
work flow control causing information or materials to move through a network of

production units in a desired sequence and rate.

LIST OF REFERENCES
Addis, William (1990), Structural engineering: the nature and theory of design, Ellis Horwood,
London.
Alarcón, L., ed. (1997) Lean Construction. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Ballard, Glenn (1993). "Improving EPC Performance." Proceedings of the 1st Annual Conference of the
International Group for Lean Production, Espoo, Finland, August, 1993. Available in Alarcon, 1997.
Ballard, Glenn (1994). "The Last Planner". Spring Conference of the Northern California Construction
Institute, Monterey, CA, April 22-24, 1994.
Ballard, Glenn and Gregory Howell (1994). “Stabilizing Work Flow.” Proceedings of the 2nd Annual
Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile, October, 1994. Available
in Alarcón, 1997, 101-110.
Ballard, Glenn, Howell, Gregory, and Casten, Mike (1996). “PARC: A Case Study”. Proceedings of the
4th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of Birmingham,
U.K.
Ballard, Glenn (1997). “Lookahead Planning: The Missing Link in Production Control”. Proceedings of
the 5th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold
Coast, Australia.
Ballard, Glenn and Howell, Gregory (1997). “Shielding Production: An Essential Step in Production
Control.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 124 No. 1, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, NY, 11-17.
Ballard, Glenn (1998). “Front End Planning”. Unpublished. Workshop on Front End Planning, Lean
Construction Institute, Houston, TX, 11/99.
Ballard, Glenn (1999). “Improving Work Flow Reliability”. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference
of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of California, Berkeley, CA. p. 275-286
Bennett, J. (1985), Construction Project Management, Butterworths, London. 220 p.
Bertrand, J.W.M., J.C. Wortmann, and J. Wijngaard (1990). Production Control: A Structural and
Design Oriented Approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1984), “Reflective practice in engineering design”, Design Studies 5(3), 185-190.
Burbidge, J.L. (1983). “Five golden rules to avoid bankruptcy”. Production Engineer, Vol 62, No. 10,
13-4.
Burbidge, J.L. (1989). Production Flow Analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J. (1966) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990), Soft systems methodology in action, John Wiley & Sons.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T. (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: design and analysis issues for field
settings. Rand McNally, Chicago.
Ballard R-17 Last Planner

Conklin, E. Jeffrey and Weil, William (1998). "Wicked problems: Naming the pain in organizations."
Reading Room Research Center; http://www.3mco.fi/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked.html
Deming, W. Edwards (1986). Out Of The Crisis, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Center for Advanced
Engineering Study.
Diekmann, James E. and K. Bryan Thrush (1986). Project Control in Design Engineering. Construction
Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
Eppinger, S.D., Whitney, D.E., Smith, R.P., and Gebala, D.A. (1990). “Organizing the Tasks in
Complex Design Projects.” ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference, Chicago.
Finger, Susan, Konda, Suresh, and Subrahmanian, Eswaran (1995), “Concurrent design happens at the
interfaces”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 9, Cambridge
University Press, pp 89-99.
Gebala, David A. and Eppinger, Steven D. (1991). “Methods for analyzing design procedures”. DE-Vol.
31, Design Theory and Methodology, ASME, 227-233.
Green, Marc, editor (1992). Knowledge Aided Design. Academic Press Limited, London.
Hayes, Robert H., Wheelwright, Steven C., and Clark, Kim B. (1988). Dynamic Manufacturing:
Creating the Learning Organization. Free Press, New York, 429 p.
Hayes-Roth, Barbara (1985). “A Blackboard Architecture for Control”. Artificial Intelligence, Elsevier
Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 252-321.
Hopp, Wallace J. and Spearman, Mark L. (1996). Factory Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing
Management. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts.
Howell, G. (1996). Plan Reliability of Electrical Contractors. A research report prepared for the
Electrical Contracting Foundation, National Electrical Contractors Association, Washington, D.C.
Howell, Gregory and Glenn Ballard (1996). “Can Project Controls Do Its Job?” Proceedings of the 4th
Annual Conference on Lean Construction, Birmingham, England. (Available at
http://web.bham.ac.uk/d.j.crook/lean/)
Kelly, Kevin (1994). Out of Control. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Koskela, L. (1992). Application of the new production philosophy to construction. Tech. Rept. 72,
Center for Integrated Facility Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, Sept., 75 pp.
Koskela, L., P. Lahdenperaa and V-P. Tanhuanperaa. 1996. Sounding the potential of lean construction:
A case study. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference on Lean Construction, School of
Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, August 25 - 28, 1996. 11 p.
Koskela, L., Ballard, G., and Tanhuanpaa, Veli-Pekka (1997). “Towards Lean Design Management”.
Proceedings of the 5th annual conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Gold Coast,
Australia.
Koskela, L. & Huovila, P. (1997). “On Foundations of Concurrent Engineering” in Anumba, C. and
Evbuomwan, N. (eds.). Concurrent Engineering in Construction CEC97. London 3-4 July. The
Institution of Structural Engineers, London, 22-32.

Koskela, L. (1999). “Management of Production in Construction: A Theoretical View”. Proceedings of
the 7th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, University of California,
Berkeley, CA. p. 241-252
Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Laufer, Alexander (1987). “Essentials of Project Planning: Owner’s Perspective”. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 6(2), 162-176.
Laufer, A. and Tucker, R. (1987). "Is Construction Project Planning Really Doing Its Job?" ASCE
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 5, pp 243-266.
Laufer, A., Tucker, R, Shapira, A., Shenhar, A. (1994) “The multiplicity concept in construction project
planning”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, American Society of Civil
Engineering, New York, NY
Laufer, Alexander, Denker, Gordon R., and Shenhar, Aaron J. (1996). “Simultaneous management: the
key to excellence in capital projects.” International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), Elsevier
Science Ltd., Great Britain. 189-199.
Laufer, Alexander (1997), Simultaneous Management, AMACOM, New York, NY. 313 pp.
Lloyd, Peter, Deasley, Peter, Seymour, David, Rooke, John, and Crook, Darryl (1997). “Ethnographic
Benchmarking in the Aerospace and Construction Sectors: a Method for Inducing Cultural Change”.
[Unpublished IMI Case for Support. Private communication.]
McNeill, Patrick (1989). Research Methods, 2nd edition . Routledge, London.
Melles, Bert and Wamelink, J.W.F. (1993). Production Control in Construction. Delft University Press,
Delft, The Netherlands.
Miles, Robert (1998). “Alliance Lean Design/Construct on a Small High Tech Project”. Proceedings of
the 6th Annual International Conference for Lean Construction. Sao Paolo, Brazil.
Murrill, Paul W. (1991). Fundamentals of process control theory. Instrument Society of America,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
Neil, James M. (1982) Construction Cost Estimating for Project Control. Morrison-Knudsen.
Ohno, Taiichi (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Productivity Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Translation not credited.)
Project Management Institute, Standards Committee (1996). A Guide to the Project Management Body
of Knowledge. Project Management Institute, Upper Darby, PA
Reinertsen, Donald (1997). Managing the Design Factory. The Free Press, New York.
Riggs, Leland S. (1986). Cost and Schedule Control in Industrial Construction. Construction Industry
Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
Rittel, Horst W. J. and Webber, Melvin W. (1973). "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy
Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
Robson, Colin 1993. Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-
Reseachers. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, U.K.

Rodrigues, A. (1994). “The role of system dynamics in project management: A comparative analysis
with traditional models”. Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Society, Lincoln,
MA, USA, 214-225.
Ronen, B. (1992). “The complete kit concept.” International Journal of Production Research, 30(10),
2457-2466.
Roozenburg, N.F.M. and Eekels, J. 1995. Product Design: Fundamentals and Methods. John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester, U.K.
Scherer, E. (editor) 1998. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Schmenner, Roger W. (1993). Production/Operations Management: From the Inside Out-5th edition.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 825 p.
Shingo, Shigeo (1988). Non-Stock Production: The Shingo System for Continuous Production.
Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ulrich, Karl T. and Eppinger, Steven D. (1995). Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, NY,
NY. HD31 U47 1995
Vollman et al, Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems, 3rd edition. Irwin Professional Publishing,
Chicago, 1992.
Wamelink, J.W.F., Melles, B., and Blaauwendraad, J. (1993). Comparison of Control Concepts and
Information Systems in Different Parts of the Dutch Construction Industry. Delft University of
Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.
Williams, Terry, Eden, Colin, Ackermann, Fran, and Tait, Andrew (1995). “Vicious circles of
parallelism”. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, Elsevier Science Ltd, 151-
155.
Womack, James P., Jones, Daniel T., and Roos, D. (1990). The Machine That Changed the World.
Harper Perennial, NY, NY.
Womack, James P. and Jones, Daniel T. (1996). Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in
your Corporation. Simon and Schuster, NY, NY.
Yin, Robert (1994). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA

BIBLIOGRAPHY
AASHTO (1991). AASHTO Guidelines for Preconstruction Engineering Management, American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, September, 1991.
AASHTO Task Force on Preconstruction Engineering Management (1996). Guide for Contracting,
Selecting, and Managing Consultants, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, Washington, DC.
Addis, William (1994). The Art of the structural engineer. Artemis, London.
Adler, P., Mandelbaum, A., Nguyen, V., and Schwerer, E. (1996) “Getting the Most out of Your Product
Development Process”. Harvard Business Review, March-April, 1996, pp 4-15.
Akao, Y (1990). Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements Into Product Design.
Productivity Press, Cambridge, 1990.
Allen, Chris (1996). “Value Judgment”. New Civil Engineer, 7th November, pp 18-19.
Allinson, Kenneth. The Wild Card of Design: A Perspective on Architecture in a Project Management
Environment. Butterworth Architecture, 1993.
American Society of Civil Engineers (1981), Proceedings of the Speciality Conference on Effective
Management of Engineering Design.
ASQC Construction Technical Committee (1987). Quality Management In The Constructed Project.
Milwaukee, Wisconsin: ASQC Quality Press.
Andersson, Niclas and Johansson, Patrik (1996). “Re-engineering of the Project Planning Process” in
Turk, 1996. 45-53.
Anumba, C. and Evbuomwan, N. (eds.). Concurrent Engineering in Construction CEC97. London 3-4
July. The Institution of Structural Engineers, London.
Applebaum, H. (1982) “Construction Management: Tradition versus Bureaucratic Methods”.

Anthropological Quarterly, 10/82, 55(4).
Archibald, Russell D. (1992). Managing High-Technology Programs and Projects, 2nd edition. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Argyris, Chris, Putnam, Robert, and Smith, Diana McLain (1985). Action Science. Jossey-Bass
Publishers, San Francisco.
Argyris, Chris and Schön, Donald A. (1978). Organizational learning: A Theory of action perspective.
Addison Wesley, Reading, MA.
Austin, S., Baldwin, A., & Newton, A., (1994), “Manipulating the flow of design information to
improve the programming of building design”, Construction Management and Economics, 12:445-455.
Austin, S., Baldwin A. and Newton, A. (1996). “A Data Flow Model to Plan and Manage the Building
Design Process”. Journal of Engineering Design, 7(1), 3-25.
Ballard Biblio-21 Last Planner

Austin, Simon, Baldwin, Andrew, Li, Baizhan, and Waskett, Paul (1998), Development of the ADePT
Methodology: An Interim Report on the Link IDAC 100 Project, Department of Civil and Building
Engineering, Loughborough University.
Austin, Simon, Baldwin, Andrew, Hammond, Jamie, and Waskett, Paul (1999). “Application of the
Analytical Design Planning Technique in the Project Process”. Proceedings of the Conference on
Concurrent Engineering in Construction, Helsinki, August 25-27, 1999. 10p.
Bacon, Matthew (1998). “Information Management in the Briefing Process”. Product and Process
Modelling in the Building Industry, Amor (ed.), Building Research Establishment Ltd., Watford, U.K.
Ballard, Glenn and Koskela, Lauri (1998). “On the Agenda for Design Management Research.”
Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja
Beach, Brazil, August, 1998.
Bardram, Jakob E. (1997). “Plans as Situated Action: An Activity Theory Approach to Workflow
Systems” in Hughes et al, 1997.
Barlow, K. (1981) “Effective Management of Engineering Design”. Proceedings of the Speciality

Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design, American Society of Civil Engineers,
New York, NY, pp 1-15.
Bennett, John and Ferry, Douglas (1990). “Specialist contractors: A review of issues raised by their new
role in building”. Construction Management and Economics, 8(3), 259-283.
Bennett, J., Flanagan, R., Lansley, P., Gray, C. and Atkin, B. (1988), Building Britain 2001, Centre for
strategic studies in construction, Reading.
Betts, M. & Lansley, P., (1993), “Construction Management and Economics: A review of the first ten
years”, Construction Management and Economics, 11:221-245.
Betts, M. & Wood-Harper, T. (1994), “Re-engineering construction: a new management research

agenda”, Construction Management and Economics, 12:551-556.
Blanchard, B.S. (1991). System engineering management. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY.
Brailsford Associates, Inc. (1995). Groton School Athletic Facilities Program, Phase I: Preliminary
Assessment Report. Brailsford Associates, Inc., Washington, D.C. DESIGN CRITERIA
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing Engineers, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Bulow, I. von (1989). “The bounding of a problem situation and the concept of a system’s boundary in
soft systems methodology”. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 35-41.
Button, Graham and Sharrock, Wes (1997). “The Production of Order and the Order of Production” in
Hughes et al, 1997.
Checkland, P.B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Choo, Hyun Jeong, Tommelein, Iris D., and Ballard, Glenn (1997). “Constraint-Based Database for
Work Package Scheduling.” Submitted for review to the ASCE Computing Congress ’98.
Christiansen, T.R. (1993). Modeling efficiency and effectiveness of coordination in engineering design
teams : VDT - the Virtual Design Team. Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford
University, 260 pp.

CIB (1996). Towards a 30% productivity improvement in construction. Construction Industry Board,
Working Group 11. Thomas Telford, London.
CIB (1997). Briefing the Team. Construction Industry Board Ltd., Working Group 1. Thomas Telford,
London.
CIDA (1994). Project Definition Guide. Construction Industry Development Agency, Sydney, Australia.
CII (1995). Pre-Project Planning Handbook. Special Publication 39-2, Construction Industry Institute,
University of Texas at Austin.
CIOB (1995). Time for Real Improvement: Learning from Best Practice in Japanese Construction R&D.
Report of DTI Overseas Science and Technology Expert Mission to Japan, The Chartered Institute of
Building, 1995.
CIRIA (1996). Design Management for Productivity. Construction Productivity Network Report WR21,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, January 1996.
CIRIA (1996). How Others Manage the Design Process. Construction Productivity Network Report
WR20, Construction Industry Research and Information Association, January 1996.
Clark, Kim B. & Fujimoto, T. (1991). Product Development Performance, Harvard Business Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Cleland, D.I. and King, W.R. (eds) (1988). The Project Management Handbook, 2nd edition, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, USA.
Clough, Richard and Sears, Glenn (1979). Construction Project Management, 2nd edition. John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Cole, A.J. and Boardman, J.T. (1995). “Modelling Product Development Processes Using a Soft Systems
Methodology” in Integrated Design and Process Technology, Texas.
Coles, Edward J. 1990. Design Management: A study of practice in the building industry. The
Chartered Institute of Building, Occasional Paper No. 40. 32 pp.
COMIC, 1993. Informing CSCW System Requirements. The COMIC Project, Esprit Basic Research
Project 6225. Document ID D2.1. 270 pp.
Concurrent Technologies 1995. Proceedings of the 1995 Concurrent Engineering Conference.

Concurrent Technologies.
Conklin, E. Jeffrey and Weil, William (1998). Wicked Problems: Naming the Pain in Organizations.
http://www.3mco.fi/meetingnetwork/readingroom/gdss_wicked.html
Construction Task Force (1998). Rethinking Construction. Report of the Construction Task Force to the
Dept. of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, United Kingdom.
Cooper, K.G. (1993). “The rework cycle: benchmarks for the project manager”. Project Management
Journal, 1993 24(1).
Cowan, H.J., Gero, J.S., Ding, G.D., and Muncey, R.W. (1968). Models in Architecture, Elsevier,
London.

Cowan, H.J. (1977a). An Historical Outline of Architectural Science, 2nd edition. Applied Science,
London.
Cowan, H.J. (1977b). The Masterbuilders. John Wiley, New York.
Cowan, H.J. (1977c). Science and Building. John Wiley, New York.
Cowan, H.J. (1980). “Quantitative and Qualitative Understanding of Engineering Phenomena”.

Proceedings Ingenieurpädagogik ’80, Wien.
Cowan, H.J. (1981). “Design Education Based on an Expressed Statement of the Design Process”. Proc.
Instn. Civ. Engrs, 70, 743-753.
Coyne, Richard D. (1988). Logic models of design. Pitman, London. 1988. 317 p.
Coyne, Richard D., Michael A. Rosenman, Antony D. Radford, Bala M. Balachandran, and John S.
Gero (1990). Knowledge-Based Design Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts. 567 p.
Crook, Darryl, Rooke, John, and Seymour, David (1996) “Research Techniques in Construction
Information Technology” in Turk, 1996. Pp 133-144.
Crook, D., Rooke, J., and Seymour, D. (1997) “Preserving methodological consistency: a reply to
Raftery, McGeorge, and Walters”. Construction Management and Economics, 1997 (15), pp 491-494.
Cross, Nigel (1993), “Science and Design Methodology: A Review”, Research in Engineering Design,
5:63-69.
Curtis, B. (1992), “Insights from empirical studies of the software design process”, Future Generation
Computing Systems, 7(2-3), 139-149.
Curtis, B., Kellner, M. & Over, J. 1992. “Process modeling”. Communications of

the ACM, vol. 35, no. 9, 75-90.
Dasu, Sriram and Eastman, Charles (1994). Management of Design: Engineering and Management
Perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Deasley, Peter (1995). “Pragmatic Models of Concurrent Product/Process Development”, EPSRC Grant
Ref GR/K39417.
Dell’Isola, M. (1981) “Methods for establishing design budgets and schedules”. Proceedings of the
Speciality Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design, American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY, pp 99-120.
Dobberstein, M. 1998. “Control on the Verge of Chaos-Analysis of Dynamic Production Structures”.

Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Dorf, Richard C. and Kusiak, Andrew, editors (1994). Handbook of design, manufacturing, and
automation. Wiley, New York. 1042 p.
Economist, The (1999). “Innovation in Industry”. The Economist, February 20, 1999.
El-Bibany, H. and Abulhassan, H. (1997) “Constraint-based collaborative knowledge integration systems

for the AEC industry”. Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in Construction,
Institute of Structural Engineers, London, U.K., pp 216-226.

Eppinger, S.D. (1991). “Model-Based Approaches to Managing Concurrent Engineering”. International
Conference on Engineering Design, Zurich.
Evans, S. (1996). “Implementing Step Change in Supplier Co-Development Capability: The

Management Challenge of Design Across the Extended Enterprise”, IMI Grant (Ref: GR/K 78533).
Finger, Susan, Fox, M.S., Prinz, F.B., & Rinderle, J.R. (1992). “Concurrent design”, Applied Artificial
Intelligence, 6, 257-283.
Finger, S., Gardner, E., & Subrahmanian, E. (1993). “Design support systems for concurrent
engineering: A case study in large power transformer design”, Proceedings of the International
Conference on Engineering Design, ICED ’93, The Hauge.
Fleig, J. and R. Schneider 1998. “The Link to the ‘Real World’: Information, Knowledge and
Experience for Decision Making”. Shop Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New
York.
Galbraith, J.R. (1974). “Organization Design: An Information Processing View”. Interfaces 4 (1974),
28-36.
Gebala, David A. and Eppinger, Steven D. (1991). “Methods for analyzing design procedures”. DE-Vol.
31, Design Theory and Methodology, ASME, 227-233.
Gibson, G.E., Jr. Tortora, A.L., and Wilson, C.T. (1994). Perceptions of project representatives
concerning project success and pre-project planning effort. Source Document 102, Construction
Industry Institute, University of Texas at Austin.
Gibson, G.E., Jr. and Hamilton, M.R. (1994). Analysis of pre-project planning effort and success
variables for capital facility projects. Source Document 105, Construction Industry Institute, University
of Texas at Austin.
Gibson, G.E., Jr., Kacczmarowski, J.H., and Lore, H.E., Jr. (1995). “Pre-Project Planning Process for
Capital Facilities”. ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(3), 312-318.
Glesne, Corrine and Peshkin, Alan (1991), Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An Introduction,
Longman, White Plains, NY.
Gray, Colin, Hughes, Will and Bennett, John (1994). The Successful Management of Design: A
Handbook of Building Design Management. Centre for Strategic Studies in Construction, University of
Reading, Reading, U.K., 100 pp.
Green, Stuart (1994) “Beyond value engineering: SMART value management for building projects”.
International Journal of Project Management, 1994, 49-56.
Green, S. D. (1996). “A metaphorical analysis of client organizations and the briefing process”.
Construction Management and Economics, 14, 155-164.
Green, S. (1998). “The technocratic totalitarianism of construction process improvement: a critical

perspective”. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 1998 5(4), 376-388.
Green, S. (1999). “The missing arguments of lean construction”. Construction Management and
Economics, 17(2), 133-137.
Groak, Steven (1992). The Idea of Building: Thought and Action in the Design and Production of Buildings. E &
FN Spon, London.

Guba, Egon G. (editor, 1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Sage Publications, London. 424 p.
Harmon, Roy L. and Peterson, Leroy D. (1990). Reinventing The Factory: Productivity Breakthroughs In
Manufacturing Today. The Free Press, New York.
Harmon, Roy L. and Peterson, Leroy D. (1992). Reinventing The Factory II: Managing The World Class
Factory. The Free Press, New York.
Haviland, David (1984). Managing Architectural Projects: The Project Management Manual. American
Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C.
Higgin, Gurth and Neil Jessop (1965). Communications in the Building Industry. Tavistock
Publications, London, U.K.
Hoefler, Brian G. and Mar, Brian W. (1992). “Systems-Engineering Methodology for Engineering
Planning Applications”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, Vol.
118, No. 2, April, 1992. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Holt, Gary (1998). A guide to successful dissertation study for students of the built environment, 2nd
edition. The Built Environment Research Unit, School of Engineering and the Built Environment,
University of Wolverhampton, U.K.
Hounshell, David A. (1984). From the American System to Mass Production, 1800-1932. The Johns
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.
Hounshell, David A. (1988). “The Same Old Principles in the New Manufacturing”. Harvard Business
Review, Nov-Dec 1988, 54-61.
Howell, G.A. and Ballard, G. (1995). Managing Uncertainty in the Piping Function. Report to the
Construction Industry Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, TX, Nov., 103 pp.
Howell, G., Laufer, A., and Ballard, G. (1993a). “Uncertainty and Project Objectives” in Project
Appraisal, 8, 37-43. Guildford, England.
Howell, G., Laufer, A., and Ballard, G. (1993b). "Interaction between sub-cycles: one key to improved
methods." ASCE, J. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., 119(4), 714-728.
Hughes, J., Somerville, I., Bentley, R., et al. (1993). “Designing with Ethnography: Making Work
Visible”, Interacting with Computers 5:239-253.
Hughes, John; Prinz, Wolfgang; and Schmidt, Kjeld (editors) 1997. Proceedings of the Fifth European
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands.
Hull, Frank M., Collins, Paul D., and Liker, Jeffrey K. (1996). “Composite Forms of Organization as a
Strategy for Concurrent Engineering Effectiveness.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
43(2), 133-142.
Hult, M. and Lennung, S. (1980). “Towards a definition of action research: a note and a bibliography”.
Journal of Management Studies, 17(2), 241-250.
IDC (1985). Design Deliverables Lists: High –Tech Greenfield Facility. Industrial Design Corporation,
Portland, Oregon.
Johnson, H. Thomas, and Kaplan, Robert S. (1987). Relevance Lost: The Rise And Fall Of Management
Accounting. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Josephson, Per-Erik & Hammarlund, Yngve. 1996. Costs of quality defects in the 90’s. Report 49.
Building Economics and Construction Management, Chalmers University of Technology. 125 p. (In
Swedish)
Juran, Joseph, and Gryna, Frank M., Jr. (1986). Quality Planning and Analysis. McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Knott, Terry (1996) No Business As Usual. British Petroleum Company, London, U.K.
Kolodner, Janet 1993). Case-Based Reasoning (. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, CA.
Kusiak, Andrew, editor (1993). Concurrent Engineering: automation, tools, and techniques. Wiley,
New York. 589 p.
Lafford, Geoff, Penny, Charles, O’Hana, Simon, Scott, Neil, Tulett, Mike, and Buttfield, Anne (1998).
Managing the design process in civil engineering design and build – a guide for clients, designers and
contractors. Funders Report /CP/59, Construction Institute for Research and Information Association,
February, 1998.
Latham, Michael (1994). Constructing the Team, HSMO, London. TH425 L3 1994 Engr
Laufer, A. (1998). Implementable Research: A Prerequisite for Implementation of Research Results.

Self-published, Haifa, Israel
Lawson, Bryan (1980). How Designers Think. The Architectural Press Ltd, London, U.K.
Levitt, R.E., Cohen, G.P., Kunz, J.C., Nass, C.I., Christiansen, T., and Jin, Y. (1994). “The ‘Virtual
Design Team’: Simulating How Organization Structure and Information Processing Tools Affect Team
Performance.” in Carley, K.M. and Prietula, M.J. (eds.), Computational Organization Theory.Lawrence
Erlbaum Assoc. Pubs., Hillsdale, N.J.
Lewin, Kurt (1964). Field theory in social science: selected theoretical papers. Edited by Dorwin
Cartwright, 1951. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticutt. 346 p.
Liker, Jeffrey K. and Fleischer, Mitchell (1992). “Organizational Context Barriers to DFM,” in
Managing Design for Manufacturability, ed. G.I. Susman, Oxford University Press.
Liker, Jeffrey K., Fleischer, Mitchell, and Arnsdorf, David (1992). “Fulfilling the Promises of CAD”.
Sloan Management Review, Spring 1992, 74-86.
Liker, Jeffrey K., Sobek II, Durward K., Ward, Allen C., and Cristiano, John J. (1996). “Involving
Suppliers in Product Development in the United States and Japan: Evidence for Set-Based Concurrent
Engineering”. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(2), 165-178.
*Lloyd, Peter and Deasley, Peter (1997). “What’s the Story? Text Based Analysis of Engineering
Design” in International Conference of Engineering Design (ICED) University of Tampere, Tampere,
Finland, pp 2/371-376.
Lock, Dennis (1993). Handbook of Engineering Management. 2nd edition, Butterworth-Heinemann,

Oxford.
London, Kerry A. and Kenley, R. (199Q). “Client’s Role in Construction Supply Chain Network
Management: A Theoretical Model”.

Lottaz, Claudio, Clément, Denis E., Faltings, Boi V., and Smith, Ian F. C. (1999). “Constraint-Based
Support for Collaboration in Design and Construction”. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 23-35.
MacPherson, S.J., Kelly, J.R., and Webb, R.S. (1993). “How designs develop: Insights from case studies
in building engineering services”, Construction Management and Economics, 11, 475-485.
Manicas, P.T. and Secord, P.J. (1983) “Implications for Psychology of the New Philosophy of Science”.
American Psychologist, 38, 399-413.
McGeorge, D., Raftery, J., and Walters, W. (1997) “Breaking up methodological monopolies: a multi-
paradigm approach to construction management research”. Construction Management and Economics,
1997 (15), pp 291-297
Moldaschl, M. 1998. “Rationality, Culture and Politics of Production”. Shop Floor Control-A Systems
Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Moldaschl, M. and Weber, W.G. (1997). “The ‘Three Waves’ of industrial group work – Historical
reflections on current research in group work.” in The use of social science for social reconstruction,
Human Relations, special issue to the 50th Anniversary of the Tavistock Institute, London.
Morris, P.W.G. and Hough, G.H. (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects: A Study of the Reality of
Project Management. John Wiley and Sons, UK.
Morris, P.G.W. (1994). The Management of Projects. Thomas Telford, London. 358 p.
Murphy, R. (1981) “Developing Work Packages for Project Control”. Proceedings of the Speciality
Conference on Effective Management of Engineering Design, American Society of Civil Engineers,
1981, p 50-79
National Research Council (1991). Improving Engineering Design. National Academy Press,
Washington, D.C.
O’Brien, W., Fischer, M., and Jucker, J. (1995) “An economic view of project coordination”.
Construction Management and Economics, 13 (3), pp 393-400.
Ohno, Taiichi (1988). Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Productivity Press,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. (Translation not credited.)
Perrow, Charles (1984). Normal Accidents: Living With High-Risk Technologies. Basic Books, New
York.
Perrow, Charles (1986). Complex organizations: A Critical Essay, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Pietroforte, R. (1997) “Communication and governance in the building process”. Construction

Management and Economics, 15, pp 71-82.
Plossl, George W. (1991). Managing in the New World of Manufacturing: How Companies can Improve
Operations to Compete Globally. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Raz, Tevi and Globerson, Shlomo (1998). “Effective Sizing and Content Definition of Work Packages”.
Project Management Journal, December, 1998, 17-23.
Reinertsen, Donald (1997). Managing the Design Factory. The Free Press, New York.

Rodrigues, Alexandre and Bowers, John (1996). “The role of system dynamics in project management”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 213-220.
Runeson, G. (1997) “The role of theory in construction management research: comment”. Construction
Management and Economics, 1997, pp 299-302.
Scherer, E. 1998. “Understanding Shop Floor Control-A Close Look at Reality.” Shop Floor Control-A
Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Schön, Donald A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Temple
Smith, London.
Schön, Donald A. (1995). “The New Scholarship Requires a New Epistemology”. Change, Vol. 27, No.
6, November/December, 1995, Washington, DC. pp. 26-34.
Schüpbach, H. 1998. “From Central Planning and Control to Self-Regulation on the Shop Floor”. Shop
Floor Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Senge, Peter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practise of the Learning Organization.
Doubleday Currency, USA.
Senge, Peter M. (1994). The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook. Doubleday, New York.
Seymour, D. and Rooke, J. (1995) “The culture of industry and the culture of research”. Construction
Management and Economics, 13(4), pp 511-523
Seymour, D., Crook, D., and Rooke, J. (1995) “The role of theory in construction management”.
Construction Management and Economics.
Seymour, David 1998. Project Phoenix-Evaluation: First Draft of Final Report. The University of
Birmingham, U.K.
Seymour, David, Rooke, John, and Adams, Kim (1998). “The Organizational Context of Benchmarking
and Metrics”. Submitted for publication.
Seymour, D.E. and Rooke, J. (1998). “Construction Management Research and the Attempt to Build a
Social Science”. Journal of Construction Procurement, Vol 4, No 1, 59-73.
Shammas-Tomas, M., Seymour, D., and Clark, L. (1996) “The effectiveness of form quality
management systems in achieving the required cover in reinforced concrete”. Construction Management
and Economics, 14(3).
Shingo, Shigeo (1981). Study of Toyota Production System. Japan Management Association, Tokyo.
Shingo, Shigeo (1988). Non-Stock Production: The Shingo System for Continuous Production.
Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Simon, Herbert A. (1970). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Stuber, F. 1998. “Approaches to Shop Floor Scheduling-A Critical Review”. Shop Floor Control-A
Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Stuber, F. 1998. “Guidelines for System Design for Operational Production Management.” Shop Floor
Control-A Systems Perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York.

*Susman, Gerald and Evered, R.D. (1978). “An assessment of the scientific merits of action research”.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 23 (December), 582-603.
Sverlinger, P.O. (1996). “Productivity in Construction-A Survey of Disturbances Affecting Productivity

in the Design Phase.” 2nd International Congress on Construction: Productivity in Construction-
International Experiences, November 5-6, 1996, Singapore.
Tatum, C.B. (1985). “Evaluating Construction Progress.” Project Management Journal, Special
Summer Issue, 1985, 52-57.
Tavistock Institute (1966). Interdependence and Uncertainty. Tavistock Publications, London, U.K.
Taylor, Frederick W. (1985 [1911]). The Principles of Scientific Management. Hive Publishing, Easton,
Pennsylvania.
The Business Roundtable (1997). The Business Stake in Effective Project Systems. Construction Cost
Effectiveness Task Force.
Tommelein, Iris D. (??). “Constructing Site Layouts using Blackboard Reasoning with Layered
Knowledge.” Chapter 10 in Knowledge Representation.
Tommelein, Iris D. (1997a) “Discrete-event Simulation of Lean Construction Processes”. Proceedings of

the Fifth Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Griffith University, Gold Coast,
Australia
Tommelein, Iris D., editor (1997b). Expert Systems for Civil Engineers: Integration Issues. American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Tommelein, Iris D. and Ballard, Glenn (1997a). “Look-Ahead Planning: Screening and Pulling.”
Technical Report No. 97-9, Construction Engineering and Management Program, Dept. of
Environmental and Civil Engineering, University of California. Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of the
Second International Seminar on Lean Construction (Seminario Internacional a Construcao sem
Perdas), 20-21 October 1997, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Tommelein, Iris D. and Ballard, Glenn (1997b). “Coordinating Specialists.” Technical Report No. 97-8,
Construction Engineering and Management Program, Dept. of Environmental and Civil Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, CA. Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Lean
Construction (Seminario Internacional a Construcao sem Perdas), 20-21 October 1997, Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
Tookey, J.E. and Betts, J. (1999). “Concurrent Engineering Issues in the Aerospace Industry-Lessons to
be Learned for Construction?” Proceedings of the Conference on Concurrent Engineering in
Construction, Helsinki, August 25-27, 1999. 11p.
Vollman et al, Manufacturing Planning and Control Systems, 3rd edition. Irwin Professional Publishing,
Chicago, 1992.
Ward, Allen, Jeffrey K. Liker, John J. Cristiano, and Durward K. Sobek II (1995). “The Second Toyota
Paradox: How Delaying Decisions Can Make Better Cars Faster”. Sloan Management Review, Spring
1995, pp. 43-61.

APPENDIX A: NEXT STAGE PRODUCTION TEAM
KICKOFF MEETING
MTG NOTES: MAPPING SESSION, 4/98

-how do they establish need dates and estimate durations?
-how decide who should be involved in what discussions?
-Case: seat selection
(floor-mounted or riser-mounted) is interdependent with (structural pads
for seats), which in turn constrains the (return air plenum), which can go either
(through the floor or risers), which has an impact on (cleaning time and cost: how
quickly can they setup for the next show?). As it happens, chairs come with
different types of upholstery, which can change the amount and type of smoke to
be removed. Points: -components such as chairs may not be offered in all
varieties; e.g., although we might prefer a riser-mounted chair, such chairs only
come with a certain type of upholstery that would overload current plans for
smoke removal. –everything’s connected to everything/designing one whole, so
parts have the logic of part to whole, potentially conflicting properties, etc.
-Important to include directives in conversion maps?
-Discovered in an earlier mapping session with the structural team that could start
structural engineering six weeks later and have steel delivered six weeks earlier
than initially estimated. Result of having members of the steel supply chain
together in the discussion: structural engineer, fabricator, and erector.
Consolidated construction drawings, fabrication drawings, and shop (field
erection) drawings into a single set.
-The production team and I are starting after ‘schematic design’. What happened
then?
-Design production consists of making calculations, producing drawings,
sourcing, etc. These provide info. for further decision making, which is the big
issue.
-Might use some product development techniques, e.g. functionalities, et al.
NOTES ON NEXT STAGE KICKOFF MTG 5/19-21/98

§ Design completed prior to meeting: Size and function of theater (enclosed
“amphitheater”, 7000 seats-by Auerbach Associates, theater consultants),
look and size and most materials of exterior (by ELS Architects, who were
selected with theater consultant’s help) and type of structure (steel frame)-
they could make a model. This approximates conceptual design and perhaps
some elements traditionally included in design development.
§ Ed Beck assembled some members of the building teams prior to the meeting
and mapped their value streams, using block flow diagramming, but switched
to MS Project when he merged the maps. Lots of negative reaction to the
CPM-too small and detailed, hard to read and follow.
Ballard A-31 Last Planner

§ Teams were mgmt/support, theatrical/interiors, MEP/FP, building
enclosure/architectural, and civil/structural. About half the team members had
participated in the initial process mapping with Ed.
§ One purpose of the meeting was to test the feasibility of completing the
project by an 11/15 move-in date and, if feasible, to create a schedule for
doing so. The other primary purpose was to create a team willing and able to
work together.
§ The first half day was devoted to introductions (very effective exercise that
got people loosened up and surfaced expectations), clarification of the
business objectives of NextStages, and the design history. The second half
day was devoted to a brief intro. to the concepts and history of lean thinking
and to the airplane game. The second day started with teams reviewing their
process maps for completeness, then transitioned after some confusion into
subgroups working on problems and a central group creating a milestone-
level CPM for the construction phase, working backwards from the 11/15
move-in. The first half of the third day (plus some) was spent first reviewing
and refining the inputs requested of each team by others, then by extending
the milestone schedule through design to the present. Burning issues were
recorded. Teams created more detailed internal schedules that fit within the
milestone schedule. Many obstacles were identified and removed in side
caucuses-“kill the snake now”.
§ Participants seemed to like it. Architects and engineers said they liked getting
input from fabricators and installers. Everyone liked getting decisions made
on the spot rather than going through multiple loops of submission, review,
rejection, rework, submission, etc.
PROBLEMS SOLVED/DECISIONS MADE

♦ Integrated base frame for ‘suspended’ scaffolding into ceiling grid of House.
♦ GO on wind test.
♦ Agreed to decide on audio proposal asap.
♦ Included cladding attachments in 3D model so can fabricate in shop.
♦ Agreed to start keeping a design decision log (tho’ inexplicit assignment
of responsibility and inexplicit process)
♦ Decoupled front window and sunscreen.
♦ Eliminated one roof elevation.
♦ Substituted PVC membrane for BUR.
♦ ????? Need to collect these for the record
EXPERIMENTAL ELEMENTS
♦ Selection by qualifications not price
♦ Shared business and design information
♦ Open book accounting

♦ Group planning
♦ Pull planning (backward pass)
♦ Cross functional team including owner, architect, engineers, fabricators,
and erectors/installers
♦ Initial attempt to integrate product and process design (needs to be
highlighted and done self-consciously, with prior specification of design
criteria for each)
♦ Production control extended to design as well as construction (future)
♦ Consolidation of drawings: design development, contract documents
(construction doc’s), and shop drawings. (Joint production of same by
engineer, fabricator, and installer?)
WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER

§ Mapping with the teams in advance was probably valuable, but would have been
more so if all team members were present.
§ Timing: Many said this should have been done earlier, but that may have been
with reference to the end date rather than to the stage of design development.
Should it be done earlier in design development?
§ The collaborative process is historically based on the Construction
Management/Guaranteed Maximum Price (CM/GMP) approach. Subcontractors
and fabricators have not previously been included in the collaboration, which was
restricted to the owner, contractor, and architect, with the contractor serving as
the owner’s watchdog over cost during the design process. Management of the
design has not been part of the process. Residue of that approach are still present
in NextStages, which seems to have thought of the architect and theater
consultant as having the closest relationship to the owner, then engineers, then
fabricators and installers. The general contractor still will contract with the
subcontractors, who will (typically) deal directly with suppliers and fabricators.
Better to have installers be in the first tier around the table, then have them bring
in fabricators and engineers? Should the architect be integrated with the
enclosure team, since their concern is with shaping space?
§ Better to have the teams use the same format for mapping so they could be more
visible and more easily integrated into a whole? Better to use workmapping
graphic terminology than block flow diagramming?
§ Explicit attempt to integrate product and process design, with prior specification
of design criteria for each.
§ Explicit commitment to joint production of drawings by engineer, fabricator, and
installer and sub-group planning of that process.
§ WHAT’S DIFFERENT AT ICE HOUSE?

§ Installers in first tier
§ Workmapping

§ Installers (and fabricators?) involved in schematic/conceptual design
§ Explicit identification of criteria for design of product and process
§ Different commercial arrangements?
NOTES TO FILE
§ Design decision log: there was no record of the design brief or basis for making
design and planning decisions. (What’s the relationship between production planning
and design? They are essentially the same kind of processes, both are design
processes, but one is of the product and the other of process for designing or
building the product. Ed initially resisted mixing design decision making in with
scheduling, but they forced themselves together, which seems quite natural and
inevitable given that they are both design processes.)
§ Need to create new names for the phases of the design/construction process in order
to break the grip of the conventional schematic/design development/contract
documents/shop drawings model?
§ I strongly suspect that many design decisions are now made with a mind to
protecting what the decision maker knows is important, but without understanding
what else is important.
§ Everyone seemed released by the prospect of working for the good of the job as a
whole, but also many said that it was just a matter of having costs reimbursable. So
simple if true, but I believe that form needs to be filled with production management
content a la lean thinking.
§ How measure the impact of consolidating DDs, CDs, and SDs into a single set of
drawings?
§ How measure the impact of integrated, team design of product and process?
§ How measure the impact of production control over the entire design-procure-install
process?
§ Need a better process for identifying and developing client values.
§ Ditto for translating those values into design criteria.
§ Need a way to publicize decisions that change the product or process design criteria-
transparency.
WHAT TO RESEARCH AND WHAT/HOW TO MEASURE?

The cross functional team approach to integrated design of product and process.
Also how values are identified, how they are translated into design criteria, and how
those criteria are actually applied in the design process. Keep documents (maps,
schedules, meeting minutes), collect participant evaluations, seek hard measurements of
improvement in product design, cost, or delivery time.
Application of shielding to control of design production. Describe process,

collect data (PPC, reasons, actions), collect participant evaluations, seek hard
measurements of improvement; eg. productivity, durations, costs.

APPENDIX B: NEXT STAGE PROJECT
TELECONFERENCES
Coordination on the Next Stage project was done largely by means of biweekly
teleconferences, in which each design team 'met' in succession throughout one long day,
with the management team present throughout. The notes below are those of this author
made prior to or during the teleconferences of 7/29/98, 8/26/98, 9/9/98, 9/23/98,
10/7/98, and 12/16/98.
PREP FOR 7/29/98 TELECONFERENCE, 7/28/98

-The big issue was lack of pipe inverts (elevations?) at building drainage
collection points.
-Should PPC measure at milestone, submilestone, action item level, or all three?
-Are “dates required” actually that or date it's thought the task will be done?
-Consider deferring decisions to accommodate uncertainty.
-How much is driven by permitting and approvals?
-Making assignments at systems team level-action items. Too detailed?
-Opaque what planning is done from which assignments are accepted; e.g., how
do specialists know loads and capacities?
-Ditto what planning is done after plan period assignments are accepted; e.g., do
teams or specialists create a detailed schedule for the plan period, or incorporate
these assignments in their schedule along with others?
-Goal: eliminate plan quality failures. Then absorb execution failures into
planning.
-Need to prioritize action items? NB: difficult to size.
-How to identify when one action item depends on another in the same plan
period?
-Need to clarify purpose of the teleconference? Is it a planning meeting to
identify tasks, or a meeting to status the plan and learn how to plan better?
-Need to make the planning system explicit: levels and corresponding processes.
-What experiments at Next Stage?
-Pull scheduling; pull as work selection criterion
-Group scheduling
-Organization in system teams
-How to control design?
-How to plan design?
-How to achieve concurrency?
-How to develop a supply chain?
-How to best use 3D(+) modeling?
-How might Last Planner benefit design?
Ballard B-35 Last Planner

-If the designer knows what work is upcoming, he/she (or others) can
prepare for it: better understand the task, make ready: pull prerequisites,
resolve conflicting directives, collect information. Also, design mgmt can
better match capacity to load, reducing idle resource time and
overproduction. Avoid having too many or too few specific skill sets to
do the available work.
-If more assigned tasks are sound (ready), less designer time is spent
switching between assignments. Also, assignments can be more often
completed when scheduled, better advancing the design project.
TELECONFERENCE, 7/29/98
-See AA07.01.8.03 “Resolve building storm/sanitary site collection points and
pipe inverts.” [my comment: need elev. of storm drains and above from ME] This
was assigned as a group task to the mechanical engineer, civil engineer, project
manager, and the plumber due 7/10 and subsequently rescheduled to 7/28. See
also AA07.15.98.09 “Complete site drainage design criteria” [my comment: need
pipe inverts at bldg collection points]
-Poor definition of assignment in AA07.15.98.16 “Meet with Lone Star Park to
discuss terms and conditions for purchasing their borrow material.” Marked
completed, but output unclear.
-NB: importance of really understanding the action: -what’s it mean? –what’s
prerequisite? –how long to perform once sound?
-AB07.01.8.08 wasn’t pulled, so due date was deferred to 8.12.98.
-Perhaps an example of lack of definition: AC07.15.98.02 “Resolve insulation
requirements for shell of the building.” Failed for lack of info from ME on heat
loads. Didn’t ask them specifically although they were included under “Action
by”.
-Completion of 3D model impacted by multiple minor changes. Driver is
intention to use model to produce fabrication drawings. Loading info. is needed
later, but need roughout loads up front. Geometry is needed first—was delayed
by changes in seating platforms.
-“value stream had no cushion.” Need to redo value stream to capture that
learning?
-Interesting example of the complexity of actions lurking beneath a seemingly
simple assignment: AD07.15.98.07 “Coordinate location of proscenium deluge
system with other systems.” Questions that arose in discussion: ‘Does the curtain
have a membrane that will require wetting both sides? How to control the deluge
system? Possibly applicable code requires heat sensors on stage-not yet provided.
Code not explicit about sensor locations, etc.’
-IB07.15.98.03 “Schedule for steel fabrication may be too tight.” Concerned
about tolerances in design and construction, especially regarding the seating
platforms.
-Apparent problem: ‘Committing’ to an action that has predescessors, perhaps in
a chain, some of which do not have identified prerequisites. A constraint: difficult
to know very far in advance what that logic is because it is developed as each
step is taken?

-NB: Important to note when a design criterion is being produced? Also…to
track decisions re design criteria?
-Make ‘issues’ deliberately include next 1-2 plan periods and use to develop
definition of the actions needed?
-Are most/many failures from lack of definition? If so, need a make ready period
in which….
-Clearly the actual planning/replanning rhythmn is faster than biweekly.
-Biweekly: *Adjust milestone (and submilestone?) schedule *Each team statuses
& categorizes the previous plan period. *Each team develops a work plan for the
next plan period. *Teams “meet” to merge work plans. *Hold this meeting, then
finalize team workplan and coordinate by phone-“Can you…?”
-
Should
Lookahead Adjusted
Planning Should
Make Ready Backlog Commitment Will

Planning
*Does this structure work for design? Are strong commitments possible?
*Design tasks are often closely coupled in time, so lots of ‘deliveries’ are
needed within the plan period.
-What statusing and categorizing can be done by individual players? Is a
teleconference the best way to do this?
-Why didn’t Jerry ask Gary for the piping inverts?
-
Project
Milestone Schedule
Team A Team B
Sub-Milestone Schedule
Player A-1 Player A-2 Player Player B-2

Work Plan B-1
*Each player is responsible for pulling what they need from others?
-Perhaps the key virtue in design is rapid replanning rather than

plan reliability.
-A key is understanding each other’s needs and the value stream.
-Levels of Schedule

♦ Milestone Schedule/Value Stream
♦ Submilestone (work release between teams)-PPC measured
♦ Work Plans (actions by players within teams)-PPC measured for use
by player; reported to project as indicator of reliability.
♦ Action Item List
♦ Decision List
♦ Issues List
♦ Player schedules
Each player statuses their work plans,

schedules, calculates PPC, identifies & initiates
- action on reasons for plan failure
Exec
All players attend team meeting to
ution
complete status and corrective action, Measure, Chart,
and to identify/communicate needs and & Publicize
commit to action items. And to look status vs
ahead 1-2 plan periods and refine Milestones
definition of future actions.
Each player develops work

plan, incorporating input Support Team revises
from Support Team, value stream and planning
visible/available to all. process visible/available to
all
-Whoever needs something from someone else is responsible for precisely

defining the need and should pull it from them.
-How to confirm pull? Must someone else give you an order or should each
player work independently toward the milestones unless he receives an order?
Share work plans so others know what you’re doing.
-It’s really hard to know the design criteria for specific design products.
-Many action items result from needs for input info.-loads (structural, heat,
energy, etc.), dimensions, etc. Fits with problem solving model?
-Might help if they had a limited glossary of action types: 1) determine
design/decision criteria, 2) understand the design task and process, 3) collect
input info., 4) generate alternatives 5) evaluate alternatives, 6) select from
alternatives/decide, 7) approve…
[activity definition model].

- Players status work plans & develop preliminary
work plans for next period. (Ask for what you I need to
need. Record what’s been requested that you define the
can do. Email PPC & Reasons to team objectives &
Exec agenda for
coordinator.)
ution these
Team Meetings to communicate meetings.
needs (& to make lookahead items
ready; understand them?) Measure &
Learn
Players develop final work plans & Revise value
share with other players stream
Status
-
Biweekly
Team Meeting Publish Charts
Off
& Corrective
Wee
Execution Actions
ks
Revise Value
Stream
Players develop &
share work plans
weekly
-Still need to decide who does what design (detailing?)-engineering consultants

or speciality contractors?
-These don’t all look like commitments to me.
-Definition of action items is a problem. Don’t fully understand what’s being
pulled (what’s needed), design/decision criteria, prerequisites.
-‘Make ready’-applied to design-starts with understanding the design task,
process & dependencies, & criteria. Should be done prior to work entering the
plan period.
-Are all players developing work plans that include both action items and work
needed to support value stream unless modified by pulls? Urge them to track

their own PPC and act on Reasons. Urge them to come to meetings with action
items statused & categorized and perhaps with something to share about
corrective action.
-Need to update value stream each 2 weeks.
-Make system transparent.
TELECONFERENCE 8/26/98
-AA08.12.98.01 “Revise and submit site drainage…” is a follow-on from the
earlier added collection points issue. Civil engineer still waiting on roof drains
info from mechanical engineer. AA08.26.98.10 “Second set of overflow drains
connect to main system….” Discovered apparent code requirement for a
separate downspout for overflow drain until it turns underground; previously
misunderstood. Project mgmt believes the city will accept an alternative design if
well argued. Some concern expressed that the requirement may have good
reason; i.e., redundant protection of roof from overloading and collapse.
Learning: important (always?) to understand the basis for the directive. NB:
Decision point when ‘negotiating’ directives: ‘fight or flee’.
-Seems like good discipline in action item identification etc.
-When step back and look at the master schedule?
-Example of criteria clarification and importance: AA08.26.98.08 “Contact
TAS/Barrier Free Texas to initiate early review and resolve the filing and
approval process.” CE discovered that they wanted minimum travel from
handicap parking to front entrance, hence a new action item to conform design to
this criterion. Previously assumed less stringent requirement.
-Not identifying or analyzing reasons. How to best do so?
-AB08.26.98.04 Computer memory had to be added to run the model. (Str. Eng.
hasn’t done 3D model before, or smaller?) Str Eng is producing drawings as they
build the model. Need to complete model in order to determine member sizes.
-Need order mill steel 1 month before breaking ground—decision confirmed.
-Would be neat if could easily and quickly see the consequences of choosing
week n or week n+1 for completion of an action. If could, then could choose
sometimes to expedite, add resources, etc. in order to do earlier, if desirable.
-Example of interdependencies: AC07.15.98.02 “Resolving insulation
requirements for shell of the building.” Sound/power ratings of cooling towers
will drive amount of insulation or double sheet rock.
-Good example of detailed info needed by one specialist (cladding contractor)
from another (architect): AC08.26.8.02 “Clearly identify on the concept drawings
the location of each color, and determine quantity of the vertical, horizontal and
smooth panels so the cost for custom colors for each type can be assessed.”
-Ongoing saga of the fire protection curtain: AD08.26.98.03 “Follow up on
proscenium deluge system meeting….” NB: poor definition—“follow up”. Really
a life safety issue that belongs in Theatrical. Opaque curtain is allowed by code
but is not customary.

-Waiting on food service consultant added late to team-Creative Industries.
Didn’t expedite getting equipment layout from them. Supposed pull was from
ME, but he didn’t realize that.
-How well do participants think this management process is working? Useful to
track PPC and reasons? Any actions taken on reasons? How much time is spent
and wasted (respent) re clarity of directives?
-Design output(s) Criteria Authority Advisors Basis

parking lot layout provide handicap city? Texas Access
w/ min travel to
bldg entrance
roof overflow separate downspout city - ind.

prot.
drains from overflow drain
systems
until it turns underground
Pull request Reason needed Requestor Requestee
-Critical to find the ‘hard’ points of the design space. If cost limit is exceeded,
may have to sacrifice functionality, capacity, or ‘quality’.
-Must be discouraging that construction keeps slipping. How to use the added
time? When/how to stop?
-NB: Different issues and tools may be useful for different disciplines. E.g., civil
seems to depend heavily on permitting requirements. Try to list design outputs
and applicable requirements, and criteria (must have/nice to have) for each
discipline and system team.
-There was a mention that ELS would make their next milestone, indicating
some attention is being paid to the milestone schedule.
-A different kind of problem—agree on criteria, but disagree on what satisfies
them. Or, designed to one set of criteria, but a specialist designs to a new set
(e.g., acoustical insulation). Specialists are advocates for specific criteria!
-How often do we not fully understand the design decision to be made? E.g.,
select and locate mechanical equipment to suit requirements for loads at least
cost, then factor in acoustical criteria and discover a cost of $200K in insulation,
wall type, etc.
-Interim assessment of Last Planner?
-Reasons analysis and action-how to?
-Record criteria?…in decisions log?/or activity definition ‘explosion’
-redraw design value stream, incorporating learnings
-record pull in action items log so they can expedite and clarify?

-Team tackle increase in acoustical-related costs: architect (visual, space layout),
acoustical consultant (calculates mitigation techniques), mechanical engineer
(point sources). Acoustical consultant calculates need for 50 foot masonry wall
to provide desired acoustical insulation from mechanical equipment noise.
Alternative is to select quieter equipment, relocate equipment, or shield
equipment locally.
-Issue: Bass Performing Arts Center had a target NB=18, but actual turned out
to be=13. How to ensure not overspending?
-NB: teams are driven by specific milestones; e.g., “complete 3D model” now
appears to be the guiding star for the structural team. What’s driving each team
in each phase? Equipment selection must be a big issue for mechanical and
electrical. Also equipment locations, which includes ducting, etc.
-Need a schedule for completing the design. Calculate from a supposed 11/15
construction start date?
-Seems like if we better understand the interdependence of decisions, we could
better manage the design process.
-NB: highly specialized consultants are expert in: 1) the real requirements;
wiggle room-what can be negotiated; alternatives (wind tunnel tests to determine
‘actual’ wind loads), 2) ways of meeting the real requirements plus desired
criteria, 3) sometimes expertise or technological means for calculating or
assessing alternatives; e.g., a testing lab. or special software.
-AA08.12.98.01 Continuing saga of site drainage—CE didn’t receive info.
needed. Apparently no pull. Wasn’t needed in plan period. Still don’t know if
there is an unavoidable code requirement for multiple leaders, but city is
confident they can allow us ‘what we want’.
-Example of one period action item requiring prerequisites from another
scheduled for same period: AA09.09.98.08 and …09. 8 was to get test data on
possible borrow material. 9 was to make a rec from 3 alt pavement designs. Why
did we think we could do this in the period? May have assumed local material
could be used. Obviously expected to get test results sooner than today, when
CE actually received them.
-Handicap parking saga: Must reconfigure; put more handicap spots in front of
bldg.
-CE didn’t complete many action items during the plan period. What hours were
spent and what was accomplished?
-Considering change in seating. No change to building structure expected. How
big a deal? Decided to defer 3D model transfer until a decision on seating is
made.
-Metal color samples saga: AC08.26.98.01. Manufacturer waiting on receipt of
third of three color samples from paint company.
-Confusion re criteria: AD09.09.98.07. EE thought theatrical didn’t want
transformer in dimmer room, but actually didn’t want it in amplifier room. Even
so, unclear what transformer location is best.
-Deluge curtain saga: Determined applicable code—NFPA (Nat’l. Fire
Protection Ass’n.) 13.
-Rough categorization of decisions in Decision Log: design itself, problem
definition, process, needs definition.

-No review of PPC or reasons within the meeting.
-What can be done to improve sequencing, make ready (soundness), and sizing?
-Revisit the design value stream to make sure we understand the best
sequence.
-Explode master schedule activities as they enter the lookahead window.
Use
activity definition model to make sure we understand the scope of
activities.
-Identify who/what is pulling each assignment in the lookahead.
-Have pullers pull.
-Issue minutes by Friday after Wednesday meetings.
-Have assignees apply assignment quality criteria; empower them to say
‘no’.
-Learn how long tasks actually take and adjust future estimates. Also, be
conservative.
-Understand the consequences of failing to complete assignments, so can
take better risks.
-Be more precise in the statement of assignments. Avoid “review”,
“follow up”, etc.
-Analyze reasons to actionable causes. Use 5 Whys.
-I’m uncomfortable with the idea that these meetings produce
assignments. Often need additional definition before can apply quality
criteria. Why not allow changes negotiated between ‘suppliers’ and
‘customers’, with notice to all? In other words, make planning continuous
rather than periodic?
-Clear need to issue ‘minutes’ immediately after each meeting. Players not using
action item log.
-Decided to ‘target’ completion of wall/acoustic design (AB09.09.98.0?)
although not sure will complete. Should understand implications of failure.
-Dangerous to complete design without knowing the users of the facility?
-It’s not bad to do more than what’s on the action item log. It is bad to not do
what’s on the log. E.g., the architect chose to spend available time to complete
glass and stair design package, and let slip detailing external wall mockup. Could
have tagged latter as a workable backlog item.
-Communication ‘preferences’: some people are not comfortable with multiple
channels: phone, email, fax, etc.
-Not being colocated is a problem. Personal connections, ease of communication,
getting the right people together, lack of unplanned meetings (water cooler,
corridor).
-Is there a list of equipment with vendor, price, weight, energy requirements, heat
generated, etc?
-Is/Should there be a statement of design criteria for each system, subsystem,
component? Is the Decisions Log sufficient? Per architects, some theatrical
consultants produce room documents/books.

-My actions:
-Analyze reasons with architect.
-Understand how individual planning systems hinge to centralized
planning system. When/how do players match load to capacity? Do they
check that match before accepting assignments? Each player has work to
do that does not appear on the master schedule and may not be pulled
externally.
-Identify action items that involve clarifying or generating design criteria.
-Develop examples of activity definition models
Db25/Fire
rating/Etc
Process Flow Int wall design

Inputs Diagram or single in acoustically
Activity sensitive areas
Resources
-Could do for seat layout, cladding, roofing, etc.

-First screen in evaluating/generating alternative designs is—does it meet
design criteria? 2nd concern: is one preferable in re nonbinding criteria
such as constructability, ease of acquiring materials, cost, time, etc?
-Need a category “Not pulled”?
-Pull what you need: ‘customer’ processes not consistently expediting what they
need from ‘suppliers’.
-Collectively define the task up front; who leads?
-Item No. Item Desc. Action by Pulled by Revised Date Date Completed Need
This Plan Period?
-I would like to see how each player identifies and tracks their work and how
they use the planning system. Are players able to make good commitments;
balance load and capacity?---One weakness appears to be lack of common
understanding of action items at close of meetings.
-Type as we go and email instant for review of wording.
-Design work can reveal more definition of a design activity. E.g., handicap
parking: developed a layout before fully understanding the design criteria.

Investigation revealed that change to conform to actual criteria may require more
fill material.
-Discussion: Civil has had high PPC. Because of external deadlines? Is there an
issue of commitment? On the contrary view, I suggest we find out:
-Are those accepting action items applying quality criteria?
-Are players able to accurately match load and capacity?
-Are players able to accurately predict ‘deliveries’? Do they expedite
deliveries?
-Are players able to sequence activities to best meet project objectives?
-Analysis of reasons: 89/125 (71%)=40 (prerequisites)+24(insufficient
time)+25(conflicting demands). Regarding prerequisites, we’re apparently not
very good at predicting or causing delivery of needed inputs. Regarding
insufficient time, we apparently are not very good at estimating the time needed
to accomplish specific tasks. Regarding conflicting demands, may need
clarification. Does this mean unexpected demands or failure to accurately
quantify multiple demands? If the former, there’s a problem with identifying
priorities even 2 weeks ahead of time. If the latter, same problem as with
insufficient time. (NB: some “prerequisite”-based failures are ripple effects;
failure of prerequisites within same plan period.)
1.Sequence: identify priorities 2 weeks ahead-demands on time and
relative priority of demands. Do we understand the design process? Can
we identify what needs to be done in what order? Do we understand
what’s involved in doing each of these activities?
2.Soundness: predict deliveries; expedite deliveries
3.Size: quantify time needed to accomplish tasks
-Blueline/Online coming up. Will post minutes thereon this time.
-Added administrative assistant to speed production of minutes.
-Target start date now 12/1/98, but February is most likely.
Civil
-CE confused re pull for first item. Thought it wasn’t pulled, but is given target
date. In any case, still lacks storm drain info.
-Easement requested. Added to final plat. Includes electrical yard. CE will copy
Fisk Elec and Texas Utilities. Curt asks if it goes through landscaping-obviously
the architect has not been involved-requested copy. Still need Texas Utilities
acceptance of our elec yard layout. –Have agreement to tie overflow drains into
ceiling verticals. Making proposal to city.
-For action item 05 we need the mechanical engineer. Civil has to conform his
plans for additional drains. (This issue just refuses to die!)
-Grand Prairie school district has 30,000 CY of fill material about 4 miles from
our site. Sandy clay. Pi of 21 & 25. Suitable for cement stabilization. Asking for
proposals. Est. cost of handling $5/CY. Est. cost of material $1? Our budget is
$5 total for select material. This is not select material. Would be $1 over budget.

May be able to mix with cheaper material from other sources. Not ready to select
pavement design.[NB: Estimates become controls; e.g., $5/CY for select
material.]
-(11) General Electric Service scope of work—need Fisk Electric.
-55 foot light pole is agreed.
-(4) Revised handicapped parking plan and posted 9/25.
[Is an issue showing interdependence of action items?]
-Issues:
-Life Safety pkg.: ELS has issued a draft and is collecting comments.
Asked to receive by 9th. Life Safety consultant back next week. Target
issue date is the 16th.
-Timmel to ask TU what they propose to give us.
-Lone Star borrow material not yet pulled.
-Lone Star easement—Halff has sent note requesting.
-No new issues from review of site value stream.
-Statusing site value stream
-Erosion control plan filed? Yes.
-Final plat complete? Yes. Sent to Kaminsky’s attorney for
review.
-Grading permit. Not applied, but should be automatic when
needed.
-Down to closing on land and filing for permits.
-Land trade with District-need to happen 10/14.
-4 Week Moving Average PPC=61%. How to improve?
Proposed to analyze in depth a sample of failures from each team,
selecting only from top 3 reasons. Could a team representative perform 5
Whys on 3 failures of each of the 3 types and report to Ballard?
-Seating configuration: curve schema GO pending cost estimate by Bruce Perry.
Bruce: No difference in cost for stud framing (Merrick Brothers) between
segmented and curved. Estimate: $10k for layout. NB: Bruce careful to state his
assumptions re the design./Need return air openings—to be worked out. Better
to form in concrete or steel?/ELS will detail each type of riser mount heights—3
types./Acoustical issues? ELS thinks not, but will check with
consultant./Decision: Change platform design. Agree will cost <$200K. 5 weeks
to price in detail. Need to work out framing requirements. Merrick says 8 feet.
HW says 20 feet. Same type framing? [Watch this one. How well did we identify
the ripple effect of this design change?]
Structural:
-Riser issue: height of riser, material, attachment method; Merrick, Haynes-

Whaley, Irwin, ELS.
-3D model on hold for revisions to seating platform. Need to complete before
final estimate.
-NB: Robert is clearly pulling duration estimates from his nether region. Often
requests for info. have the flavor of demands for commitment—or just plain
wishful thinking.]

-Prefab stairs. Can use for fire stairs but lobby stairs must be detailed by
structural engineer.
-Structural and foundation permit date will be pushed back by 2 weeks to 11/24.
[Need to do more process mapping! Harder to do at a distance.]
-Update from Haynes-Whaley, Str. Eng: Good meeting with ELS last week.
Finalizing fly tower. Need input from Jaffe re concrete pads for mechanical eqpt.
on low roof. Offline discussions to be held on interior wall design. Steve of CC
wants Peterson to install tall house wall-discuss with HW. Peterson to install all
purlins.
-[NB: The traditional method seems to be for each discipline to push forward
independently, then adjust as as inputs are acquired from others. To what extent
do they proceed on assumptions or pull/wait for what they need?]
Skin:
-NB: Joel asks each team/person if they need anything they don’t have.
-Metal samples and price are in hand. Price not an issue.
-Wall mockup pkg. from ELS: each c. 10’x20’ high; to show 3 conditions; e.g.,
vertical panels and soffits. Locate offsite on adjacent property-Kaminsky’s. Also
applies to construction trailers? Can defer grading until last minute? Cost: ELS to
provide simplified drawings. [Why not do a computer model?]
-Need some concrete under rooftop units on low roofs, but no masonry wall. Not
sure re no. of layers of gyp. board in stud wall. Only possible exception is unit
serving dressing room. [Why has this been so hard/taken so long to resolve?]
-ELS to give CC the change point from X to Y at back of house.
-Material for low canopy roof will be visible from lobby. Need different material?
MEPF:
-How many items of kitchen eqpt. do we now have? No. of supply and exhaust
fans have increased from 6 to 24. Why? Amy couldn’t say. To handle offline.
-Impact of smoking area on exhaust.
-8400 feet of 2 inch slots in seat framing.
-Biggest issue to resolve is concessions.
-Acoustic shielding of mechanical units: when deal with duct noise? When will
duct layout be done? 10/12: main duct runs laid out and sized.
[Collecting status info., clarifying current state of design: “Are there any
mechanical units on the other side of the building?”]
-NB: NC25 not maximum in lobbies and cheap seats.
-Fire pump: What available water pressure? Need a pump? Yes-125hp. Should be
served off emergency generator? Fisk to examine.
-Locations/sources of cable, telephone, etc? Need to meet with phone co.
-How many phone outlets will be required? No. of incoming lines? Need to show
on floor plan-phone, data, closed circuit TV. Bill Cambra.
-[Civil engineer seems to handle all ins and outs from property.]
-Requirements for cable TV? Comes into telephone data room. Satellite dish on
site? On roof backstage?

-Before addition of loading dock, first floor plans showed gas meter location
which now doesn’t work. Where is gas meter now? Where to bring gas to?
-U.G. plumbing at perimeter: lower priority-work to 5 week schedule. [The issue
seems to be what’s needed in order to design the underground plumbing.]
-Duct designer needs seat redesign backgrounds. Need to evaluate but add 2
weeks for design change (10/26).
-Lighting heat loads complete. Emergency power loads need to be updated-now
230 hp, but kitchen eqpt not settled. Also normal loads.
-Mtg on structural issues at ELS last week got chunks of work done. [colocation
issue!]
-[watch for interdependencies/gnarly issues: kitchen, seating, acoustics]
Pricing:
-Cost of project has clearly risen, but need definitive estimate. Becoming the hot
item.
-Estimating is based on drawing takeoffs. Want reproducibles.
-Electronic transfer hasn’t worked. Don’t transmit error free.
-Current categorization of reasons does not reveal actionable causes.
-Has pricing diverted attention from scheduling?
-Why is the estimate so important? Amount of $ needed; financing. Fix GMPs for
each player.
-Don’t always understand the decision chain; e.g., color selections would seem to
be needed late, but may be needed earlier to match exterior and interior colors.
-ELS considering board vs stone wall to lower cost. But not much such matl.
Would violate City’s architectural review? Considering using inside to replace
something else. May be more labor than stone. NB: Functionalities are revealed
by technology and component selections. E.g. need 10 by 10 area for scissor lift
to be used to relamp lights in high lobby ceiling. Could have chosen lights that
could be lowered for relamping.
-The longer the plan period, the more difficult it is to defer commitments until
receipt of prerequisites, rather than betting on the come. The shorter the plan
period, the less lead time is available for planning future periods.
-Missing water and electricity in parking lot.
-Overflow drain issue: now 2 separate systems are required (issue that won’t
die!).
-NB: local differences—CHPA didn’t know gas meter size beforehand.
-scheduled new item: begin fire protection drawings by 1/15. 6-8 week design
period. Need for permit. Focus on distribution system rather than sprinklers.

APPENDIX C: NEXT STAGE ACTION ITEMS LOG
The following log was the primary coordinating device used on the Next Stage project.
Each teleconference was given a sequence number, beginning with AA07.01.98,
indicating the design team (AA indicated Site/Civil, BB indicated Structural, etc.) date of
the teleconference. Action items that were identified within each teleconference were
given a sequence number such as AA07.01.98.01. Assignment of action items was made
to the various companies participating on the project by use of their initials, e.g., ELS
stood for the architectural firm. The date required was specified. If an action item failed
to be completed by the required date, a reason number was (usually) indicated in the
column labeled RNC, and a new required date listed in the column Date Required. Once
completed, a date completed was provided and the rows devoted to the action item were
darkened.
1. Lack of decision
2. Lack of prerequisites
3. Lack of resources
4. Priority change
5. Insufficient time
6. Late start
7. Conflicting demands
8. Acts of God or the Devil
9. Project changes
10. Other
Action items are grouped by design team, sequenced in the order Site/Civil (AA),
Structural (AB), Enclosure/Architectural (AC), Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire
Protection (AD), Theatrical/Interiors (AE), and Project Support (AF).
Ballard C-1 Last Planner

Linbeck Next Stage Development
The Texas Showplace
Action
Items
Log
As of December 2, 1998 Project Progress Meeting Revised: 12.14.98

Date Originated- Item Description Action R Date Date
Item No. Completed
By N Required
C
A.
Site/Civil
Texas Accessibility Standards:
AA07.01.98.01 • Provide TAS requirements to ELS HA 07.07.98 07.07.98
AA07.01.98.02 • Identify preliminary and final TAS review ELS 07.14.98 07.14.98
process.
AA07.01.98.03 Resolve building storm/sanitary site collection CHPA/H 2 07.10.98 08.02.98

points and pipe inverts; still lacking inverts. A/ 07.31.98
Coordinate profiles with water line LCC/TSP
surrounding building to be deeded to City. H
AA07.01.98.04 Develop site and parking lighting compatible TEE/FE/ 6 07.14.98 08.12.98
with Lone Star Race Park for site plan HA 08.12.98
submission for Planning and Zoning approval
(Control Road "B").
AA07.01.98.05 Provide color rendering for submission for ELS 7 07.14.98 07.27.98
Planning and Zoning review/approval; resolve 07.27.98
landscape issues (IA07.01.98.05).
AA07.01.98.06 Transmit Site Plan package (2 sets) to LCC. HA 7 07.14.98 07.17.98
07.17.98
AA07.01.98.07 Review/Revise value stream diagram. HA 07.14.98 07.14.98
AA07.01.98.08 Provide/confirm building electrical load for TEE/HA/ 7 07.14.98 07.28.98
site utility plan. FE 07.17.98
AA07.01.98.09 Provide invert elevation for storm water pipe HA 07.14.98 07.14.98
at loading area.
AA07.15.98.01 Provide recommendation for Accessibility HA 07.17.98 07.15.98
Specialist to ELS
AA07.15.98.02 Contact power company for project TEE 07.20.98 07.20.98
information.
AA07.15.98.03 Have traffic impact analysis completed. HA 07.20.98 07.20.98
AA07.15.98.04 Send copy of traffic plans and traffic impact HA 07.20.98 07.20.98
analysis to Lone Star Park.
AA07.15.98.05 Complete conceptual point grading plan ELS 6 07.20.98 08.11.98
around building. 08.12.98

AA07.15.98.06 Resolve grading at diagonal wall with ELS 6 07.20.98 08.11.98
landscape architect. 08.12.98
AA07.15.98.07 Obtain Accessibility Specialist list from Texas ELS 07.22.98 07.22.98
Dept. of Licensing.
AA07.15.98.08 Select an Accessibility Specialist HA/ELS 07.28.98 07.28.98
AA07.15.98.09 Complete site drainage design criteria HA 2 07.24.98 08.12.98
08.12.98
AA07.15.98.10 Complete off-site civil design of City required HA 07.24.98 09.09.98
items of work (IA07.01.98.04). Submitted 09.09.98
comments, not required for City Council, but
for Plat Approval (Approved at Planning and
Zoning meeting).
AA07.15.98.11 Complete Road "D" plan to support easement HA 2 07.24.98 08.12.98
and operating items negotiations with Lone 08.12.98
Star Park (Received conceptual design
approval 07.24.98).
AA07.15.98.12 Resolve and provide presentation materials to HA 07.24.98 07.24.98
City Planning for internal staff review.
AA07.15.98.13 Planning Department internal staff briefing NS/HA 07.27.98 07.27.98
(IA07.01.98.02).
AA07.15.98.14 Confirm city mailings/posting on-site notice NS/HA 07.27.98 07.27.98
announcing zoning revision hearing
(IA07.01.98.03).
AA07.15.98.15 Determine amount of project requirement for HA 07.28.98 07.27.98
borrow material.
AA07.15.98.16 Meet with Lone Star Park to discuss terms and NS/LCC 07.28.98 07.27.98
conditions for purchasing their borrow
material.
AA07.29.98.01 Resolve date of City Council hearing; NS 07.31.98 08.12.98
coordinate date with Economic Development
assistance package hearing/approval.
AA07.29.98.02 Dialog with Lone Star Race Park manager TEE 08.03.98 08.12.98
regarding lighting fixtures.
AA07.29.98.03 File original drawings/graphics for Planning & HA 08.03.98 08.12.98
Zoning meeting (IA0701.98.07).
AA07.29.98.04 Meet with Grand Prairie building officials to ELS/HA/NS 08.06.98 08.06.98
determine multiple permit packages and
document requirements (IF07.15,98.05).
AA07.29.98.05 Planning and Zoning hearing/approval NS/HA 08.10.98 08.24.98
(IA07.15.98.01). 08.24.98
AA07.29.98.06 Decision regarding rescheduling 08.18.98 City NS/ELSHA 08.12.98 08.12.98
Council hearing
AA07.29.98.07 Complete water line/easement design around HA 08.12.98 08.12.98
building.
AA07.29.98.08 Resolve construction start date NS Issues Log 08.26.98
(IA08.26.98.01).
AA07.29.98.09 Resolve electric power supply options, TEE/HA/LC Issues Log 08.26.98
permanent and temporary. M. Dickman met C
R. Cox of Texas Utilities (IA08.26.98.02)

AA07.29.98.10 Advance terms and conditions for purchasing NS/HA 08.12.98 09.09.98
borrow material from Lone Star Park 09.09.98
(IA07.01.98.09/IA07.15.98.06). Evaluate
material. Pull is the GMP. Est. 50,000 yds
select material.
AA07.29.98.11 Prepare revised Site/Civil estimate. HA 08.12.98 08.26.98
AA08.12.98.01 Revise and submit site drainage (added CHPA/H 2 08.19.98 10.21.98
collection points) for revised commissary roof A 7 09.23.98
drainage (in Pricing Documents) and sanitary 2 10.07.98
(not changed) Received commissary plan.
Storm drain info to HA by 09.16.98 for
completion by 09.23.98 (10.07.98).
AA08.12.98.02 Update site estimate. HA 08.26.98 08.26.98
AA08.12.98.03 Revise and submit site plan to reflect HA/ELS/CH 08.19.98 08.26.98
commissary, and its impact on site - truck PA/NS
entry, loading area, trash containers, etc.
AA08.12.98.04 Design lighting operation/wiring for Road D NS/HA/TEE Issues Log 08.26.98
(IA08..26.98.03). Sketch within one month by
TEE. Needs current site plan.
AA08.12.98.05 Traffic operational plan to be sent to HA. NS 08.14.98 08.26.98
AA08.12.98.06 Resolve traffic/road design issues with Lone NS/HA 08.12.98
Star Park (IA07.01.98.01).
AA08.12.98.07 Complete right-of-way abandonment NS/HA 08.18.98 08.12.98
(IA07.01.98.10). 09.01.98
AA08.12.98.08 Complete district land trade (IA07.01.98.11). NS/HA 09.01.98 08.12.98
AA08.12.98.09 Review of documents/Final Plat for NS/HA 08.12.98
improvement dedication to City.
(IA07.15.98.04)
AA08.12.98.10 Rethink overflow drain vs. scuppers for roof ELS/CHPA 08.26.98 08.26.98
drainage. (Related item AD08.12.98.01)
AA08.12.98.11 Resolve traffic analysis outstanding items, i.e. HA 08.14.98 08.26.98
access route to new commissary prior to
planning and zoning hearing. Prepare related
explanatory drawing. Director of planning
confirmed that there was no need to revise &
resubmit.
AA08.12.98.12 Present revised site plan at Planning & Zoning NS/HA 08.19.98 08.26.98
hearing.
AA08.26.98.01 Provide LCC with a full set of documents HA HA 08.26.98
used to prepare estimate.
AA08.26.98.02 Decision on sign size and location metes and NS/HA/E 1 08.26.98 09.23.98
bounds to support easement documents. LS 09.23.98
AA08.26.98.03 Decision on date for City Council NS 08.28.98
meeting/approval, 09.02.98 (IA07.01.98.08).
AA08.26.98.04 Contact R.Cox,Texas Utilities about HA 08.31.98
coordinating base CAD file.
AA08.26.98.05 Contact R.Cox, Texas Utilties about service NS 08.31.98
provisions and Texas Utilities participation.
AA08.26.98.06 Resolve pavement thickness design prior to the HA 09.01.98
City Council hearing.

AA08.26.98.07 Prepare an exploration plan for borrow HA 09.09.98
material evaluation and comparison.
AA08.26.98.08 Contact TAS/Barrier Free Texas to initiate ELS 09.09.98
early review and resolve the filing and
approval process (BFT completerd early
review with comments. Filing can be in 2 or
more packages).
AA08.26.98.09 Cost-Benefit analysis both light poles and HA/TEE 09.09.98
various schemes.
AA08.26.98.10 Second set of overflow roof drains connect to ELS/CHPA 09.09.98
main system. To be confirmed by Grand
Prairie.
AA08.26.98.11 Texas Utilities acceptance of current FE 2 09.09.98 Combined
configuration of electrical yard 10.07.98 Below
(AA09.09.98.11).
AA09.09.98.01 TAS Accessibility Specialist review to be ELS 09.09.98 09.09.98
complete prior to TAS filing (IA07.15.98.02).
AA09.09.98.02 Organize TAS submittal documents for HA/ELS 09.09.98 09.09.98
internal and external review (IA07.15.98.03).
AA09.09.98.03 Define Lighting for site, including fixture type HA/ELS/NS/ 09.09.98 09.09.98
and configuration/spacing to match Lone Star TEE
Park where feasible (IA08.12.98.01).
AA09.09.98.04 Confirm LCC estimate such that utilizing 55 FE/LCC 09.23.98 09.23.98
foot poles (13) for the parking lot lighting,
each with 3-1000 watt fixtures, at 300 feet
o.c. will result in a net cost savings of $15,000
over 40 foot poles (38) with 1-1000 watt
fixture.
AA09.09.98.05 Determine the most effective design/cost CHPA/EL 2 09.23.98 To MEPF
solution to provide overflow roof drainage. S/ LCC 10.07.98
(AD10.07.98.01)
AA09.09.98.06 Discuss the overflow roof drain situation with NS 09.23.98 09.23.98
City of Grand Prairie and attempt to negotiate
dual system.
AA09.09.98.07 Revise off-site civil design to delete right turn HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
lane from Beltline Road and add a right turn
lane on Lonestar Pkwy where it turns onto
Beltline Road, per the City's request.
AA09.09.98.08 Results of testing program to obtain geotech HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
information on borrow material. Drilling to
commence 09.10.98.
AA09.09.98.09 Based upon borrow material characteristics, HA 2 09.23.98 11.04.98
make engineeering determination from 3 5 10.07.98
alternative pavement designs provided. High 2 10.21.98
PI of borrow material requires inport of 11.04.98
select fill; choose pavement design based on
select fill specification.
AA09.09.98.10 Obtain comparables on fill material for HA 5 09.23.98 10.21.98
negotiation with LSP. 10.23.98

AA09.09.98.11 Upon Texas Utilities final design, and FE/TEE 2 09.23.98 12.02.98
acceptance of current configuration of 2 10.07.98
electrical yard (AA08.26.98.11);resolve the 7 10.21.98
general electric service/scope of work with TU 2 11.04.98
(loop service w/manual transfer switch). 12.02.98
Revised yard layout sent to TU. TU approved.
AA09.09.98.12 Upon final design by Texas Utitlities, HA 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
determine/coordinate location of easements. 10.07.98
AA09.09.98.13 Determine location of handicap parking ELS/HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
relative to main entrance doors; determine if
side doors will be handicap accessible doors
for either egress or ingress.
AA09.09.98.14 Complete study and adjustment of civil list of HA/NS/LCC 09.23.98 09.23.98
cost increases.
AA09.23.98.01 Approval of assistance package by Grand NS/HA 09.23.98 09.23.98
Prairie City Council.
AA09.23.98.02 Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon CHPA 10.07.98 To MEPF
Cherry, Building Official, City of Grand
Prairie. (AD10.07.98.01)
AA09.23.98.03 Confirm depths of 55 foot light pole bases and TEE 10.07.98 10.07.98
added cost to finalize decision to use over 38
foot poles.
AA09.23.98.04 Relocate handicap parking and revise related HA 10.07.98 09.25.98
site grading.
AA10.07.98.01 Prepare documents/Life Safety Issues for ELS 10.07.98 10.07.98
initial TAS review submission
(IA07.29.98.02).
AA10.07.98.02 For city requested right hand turn lane from HA 10.07.98 10.07.98
Beltline Road to Lone Star Parkway, send
sketch/metes & bounds to City
Comptroller/Sports Facilities Development
Corp., A. Cammerata, to make aware of need.
AA10.07.98.03 Review and comment on draft Life Safety NS 10.09.98 10.21.98
document prior to initial TAS review
submission.
AA10.07.98.04 Send sketch to Texas Utilities for new location TEE/FE 10.14.98 To MEPF
of on-site pad mouinted equipment 10.21.98
(switchgear location, pad sizes).
AA10.07.98.05 Complete revised floor plan background upon ELS 10.16.98 10.21.98
which to revise underground/underslab
utilities/structure.
AA10.21.98.01 Follow up borrow material availability and NS/HA 10.21.98 10.21.98
cost from Grand Prairie ISD. Should be less
than $1/CY (IA10.07.98.01).
AA10.21.98.02 Complete paving estimate. HA 10.23.98 11.04.98
AA10.21.98.03 Resolve requirements of joint use of single FE 5 11.04.98 12.02.98
utility trench. Info sent to TEE. 12.02.98
AA10.21.98.04 Request for Letter from Texas Utilities NS 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
memorializing service and their agreed upon 7 12.16.98
responsibilities.

AA10.21.98.05 Sketch of transformer enclosure louvers to ELS 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
Texas Utilities. No longer necessary due to 12.02.98
approval of AA09.09.98.11.
AA10.21.98.06 Decide location of Gas Meter. Location HA/TEE/ 5 11.04.98 12.02.98
decided by CHPA plan; not yet approved by ELS 12.04.98
TU
AA10.21.98.07 Closing occurred 11.02.98; Final Plat utility HA 2 11.04.98 12.02.98
signatures to be obtained and recorded. Half 5 12.16.98
completed.
AA11.04.98.01 Complete City land trade; complete land NS/HA 11.04.98 11.04.98
transfer with City Comptroller/Sports
Facilities Development Corp (IA10.21.98.02).
AA11.04.98.01 Negotiate with Kaminsky,LSRP (and, later, NS/HA 7 12.02.98 12.16.98
GPISD), to purchase common fill borrow
material, 30,000 cuyd at $0.75/cuyd in place
(IA09.09.98.01); look for sand in Kaminsky
material.
AA12.02.98.01 Texas Utilities approval of gas meter location. HA 12.16.98
AA12.02.98.02 Revise site sanitary and storm connection HA/CHPA 12.16.98
points to accomodate changes in the
mechanical/plumbing plan ($10,000 est.added
cost); alternatively, run lines internal to the
building.
AA12.02.98.03 Resolve proposed program changes to add NS/ELS/CH 12.16.98
special events power and water to parking lot. PA/HA
AA12.02.98.04 Decide early construction program. NS/ELS/HA 12.16.98
AA12.02.98.05 Decide contracting format for sitework (Gen NS/HA/LCC 12.16.98
Cond, Supplmntl, Conditions of Contract)
(IA11.04.98.01).
AA12.02.98.06 Send copy of Engineering Joint Council HA 12.16.98
documents.
AA12.02.98.07 Revise grade change at side of commisary. HA 12.16.98
AA12.02.98.08 Landscape not yet released by NS; use HA HA 12.16.98
budget for pricing.
B.
Structural
AB09.09.98.01 Complete 3-D model with member sizes and HW 5 09.23.98 09.23.98
down load to SPI (IB08.26.98.01). Compete 10.02.98
with column sizes; correct download errors..
AB07.01.98.01 • Provide/fax structural tables for beam HW 07.02.98 07.02.98
sizes/spacing to ELS.
AB07.01.98.02 Resolve balcony structural design and sight ELS/HW 1 07.28.98 08.12.98
lines; requires seating envelope/platform to 08.12.98
be resolved.
AB07.01.98.03 Revised low roof slopes required by HW for ELS 07.28.98 07.28.98
structural design.
AB07.01.98.04 Provide elevator shaft dimensions and ELS 07.07.98 07.13.98

structural loads to HW.
AB07.01.98.05 Provide preliminary chase locations and sizes ELS/CHP 7 07.07.98 08.12.98
to HW. A 08.12.98
AB07.01.98.06 Resolve roof loading from hung structural ELS/HW/ 7 07.07.98 07.28.98
platform, scaffolding live load, and acoustical JHSA 07.28.98
panels.
AB07.01.98.07 Resolve seating platform design, elevations, ELS/HW 2 07.07.98 08.12.98
and structural load; geometry, sight lines 08.05.98
refinement based upon revised seat.
AB07.01.98.08 Provide/confirm location and structural loads TEE 7 07.14.98 08.12.98
(confirm) of electrical equipment to HW 08.12.98
(greater than 500 lbs).
AB07.01.98.09 Provide location and structural loads for TS/AA 07.14.98 08.26.98
theatrical rigging system to HW. Also, point 08.26.98
loads for proscenium reduction system.
Geometry of loading is critical. Set for 3-D
model.
AB07.01.98.10 Provide/confirm location and structural loads JHSA 07.14.98 07.29.98
of speakers/audio equipment to HW.
AB07.01.98.11 Provide/confirm location, electrical load, and AA 07.14.98 07.29.98
structural loads of lighting projectors at
balcony to HW/TEE.
AB07.01.98.12 Provide/confirm location and structural loads AA 07.14.98 07.29.98
of audience/house and proscenium reduction
systems to HW.
AB07.01.98.13 Confirm receipt of CHPA drawings indicating HW 07.14.98 07.29.98
duct and pipe locations and loads, including
proscenium deluge system.
AB07.01.98.14 Provide final results of wind tunnel test. ELS/HW 5 07.14.98 08.12.98
08.12.98
AB07.15.98.01 Resolve alternative balcony beam sizes and HW/ELS 5 07.24.98 07.29.98
spacing options; integrate with the 3D model.
AB07.15.98.02 Resolve design wind forces/pressures on the HW 5 07.24.98 08.12.98
building. 08.12.98
AB07.15.98.03 Prepare 90 day structural steel commitment HSC 3 07.28.98 08.26.98
and expenditure schedule, include options for 08.26.98
millrun steel and warehouse steel.
AB07.29.98.01 Resolve concessionaire reprogramming effect NS/ELS/VS 08.05.98 08.26.98
on back of house low roof. ELS package 08.26.98
rec'd last week, based on Scheme 'A'.
AB07.29.98.02 Determine effect of delaying 3D model to HW/HSC/LC 08.12.98 08.26.98
09.16.98 on project schedule, i.e. C 08.26.98
fabrication/detailing.
AB07.29.98.03 Decision required to maintain construction NS 08.12.98 08.12.98
start date and approve structural steel order
for mill run steel and fab shop commitment
without 3D Model(IB07.15.98.02).
AB07.29.98.04 Complete new background drawings for back ELS 08.12.98 08.26.98
of house. 08.26.98
AB07.29.98.05 Provide all input to HW for structural detail of ELS 08.12.98 08.12.98

platform levels.
AB08.12.98.01 Review schedule of four weeks for steel ELS ASAP 08.12.98
fabrication. (IB07.15.98.03)
(AD08.12.98.05)
AB08.12.98.02 Offline conference regarding utilizing 'Total NS/LCC/EL 08.26.98 08.26.98
Station' to do computerized field layout. S/ HW
AB08.26.98.01 Provide HW structural loads for box boom JHSA/AA 2 09.01.98 09.23.98
alternate locations. /ELS 09.23.98
AB08.26.98.02 Verify that box boom alternate locations hit JHSA/AA 2 09.01.98 09.23.98
4000# support points. /ELS/ 09.23.98
HW
AB08.26.98.03 Confirm assumptions for proscenium loads. AA/ELS/ 2 09.04.98 09.23.98
Provide sliding panel information. Major HW 09.23.98
loads resolved and will be faxed.
AB08.26.98.04 Provide preliminary review of 3-D model to HW 09.04.98 09.09.98
HSC/SPI/PB for review of connections and
heavy steel members(IB07.01.98.01).
AB08.26.98.05 Review value stream based on mill order steel HSC/LCC 09.04.98 09.09.98
to determine order lead time.
AB08.26.98.06 Coordination meeting upon completion of 3D JHSA/AA/E Issues Log 09.09.98
model to finalize effect of stage and grid on LS/
structure. (IB08.26.98.02) HW/LCC
AB08.26.98.07 Define/review the structural detailing in a HW/HSC/SP 09.09.98 09.09.98
coordination meeting to develop the I/ PB/LCC
sequence/schedule to serve the shop
drawing/fabrication schedule.
AB09.09.98.01 Complete 3-D model with member sizes and HW 5 09.23.98 09.23.98
down load to SPI (IB08.26.98.01). Compete 10.02.98
with column sizes; correct download errors.
AB09.09.98.02 Meeting @ HW on Monday 9/14/98 @ 1:30 HW/HSC/SP 09.14.98 09.23.98
p.m. to determine detailing input sequence I/ LCC/PB
needed by HW & SPI to accommodate
fabrication schedule shown in 21 month value
stream.
AB09.09.98.03 Finalize wall design/acoustics for F.O.H. JHSA/EL 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
mechanical rooms. CHPA to confirm S/ CHPA 10.07.98
AHUs/configuration to mitigate wall
acoustics; also, alternative wall designs.
AB09.09.98.04 Review HW 3D model data transmission for HS/SPI 09.23.98 09.23.98
system compatibility.
AB09.23.98.01 Schedule work session upon completion of 3D NS/ELS/HW 09.30.98 09.23.98
model with structural and theatrical /
consultants to address issues and detailing of HSC/PB/JHS
stage house and auditorium roof. A/
Coordination meetings set for 09.29.98 and CHPA/TEE/
09.30.98. (Formerly AB08.26.98.06) AA/TSC/SP
(IB08.26.98.02). L/ PA
AB09.23.98.02 Review design/structural implications of JHSA/HW/E 10.07.98 10.07.98
alternate interior wall systems requiring LS
acoustical consideration.

AB10.07.98.01 Develop/detail steel platform design for curved ELS/HW/M 10.09.98 10.21.98
seating format, including curved and slotted BS
riser, and installation of riser mounted seating /AA/LCC
(involve Irwin Seating). Draw section for
each typical riser height.
AB10.07.98.02 Revise structure to reflect development of the HW/ELS/ 2 10.09.98 11.04.98
fly tower and rigging wall. Provide rigging AA 11.04.98
wall section.
AB10.07.98.03 Coordination meeting with CC regarding HW/ELS 10.15.98 10.21.98
purlin framing, wall sections, and wind girts
(locations relative to interior finishes);
fabrication and installation responsibility.
Provide plan and wall section.
AB10.07.98.04 Revise framing to accommodate concrete HW/ELS 5 10.21.98 11.04.98
under roof top units at BOH, top of offices. 11.02.98
AB10.21.98.01 Identify allowable deflection for purlins HW 11.04.98 11.04.98
supporting interior finishes.
AB10.21.98.02 Resolve purlin design with regard to interior HW/ELS/CC 11.04.98 11.04.98
finishes.
AB10.21.98.03 Review riser design with regard to platform MBS 11.04.98 11.04.98
construction.
AB10.21.98.04 Establish overall general design for seating HW 1 11.04.98 12.02.98
risers. Resolve concept design reviewed with 2 12.16.98
MBSI.
AB10.21.98.05 Complete seating platform design to be able to ELS 2 11.06.98 12.02.98
complete 3D Model download by 12.11.98 5
(and ABM by 12.18.98) (IB07.15.98.01).
Havens currently doing hand take-off for
costing.
AB10.21.98.06 Resolve retaining wall location which has been ELS/HW/ 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
influenced by the seating platform curve. PB/ LCC 7 12.16.98
AB10.21.98.07 Review four seating mounting details with ELS 11.04.98 11.04.98
Irwin Seating.
AB10.21.98.08 Resolve the structural support and acoustical ELS/HW/JH 11.04.98 11.04.98
requirements at "meet and greet" areas at west SA
side of building; HVAC Units moved.
AB10.21.98.09 Revisit/update steel detailing value stream HW/HS/SPI/ 11.04.98 11.04.98
sequences to decide how far to proceed. LCC
AB11.04.98.01 Revise 3-D Model to reflect curved seating HW 11.04.98 11.04.98
format (IB10.07.98.01).
AB12.02.98.01 Review prefab stair utilization ELS 12.02.98 12.02.98
(IC08.12.98.02, IB08.12.98.01).
Specifications allow the use of prefab stairs at
specific locations.
AB12.02.98.02 Resolve pricing set coordination issues, i.e. ELS/HW 12.16.98
column locations, to be able to complete 3D
Model.
AB12.02.98.03 HW/PB meeting on 12.03.98 to review HW/PB 12.16.98
erection sequence on which ABM's are based.

AB12.02.98.04 Resolve proposed changes relative to 3D NS/ELS/HW 12.16.98
Model, i.e. stage house.
C. Enclosure/Architectural
AC07.15.98.02 Resolve insulation requirements for shell of ELS/JHSA/ 07.28.98 08.26.98

the building. Refine energy calculations for CHPA 08.18.98
specific R value for walls and roof
(IC07.01.98.01). Sound/Power ratings of
cooling towers will drive amount of
insulation or dbl sheet rock.
AC07.29.98.01 Prepare life safety narrative outline. ELS 08.12.98 08.06.98
AC08.12.98.01 Evaluate status of input for structural HW 08.26.98 08.26.98
detailing. Value stream.
AC08.12.98.02 Determine 'R' value for roof considering both ELS/JHSA/ 08.12.98 08.12.98
thermal insulation and noise. (IC07.15.98.01) CHPA
(DC08.12.98.01)
AC07.15.98.01 Complete louver selection (IC07.01.98.04). ELS/CC 07.22.98 07.29.98
AC07.15.98.03 Resolve material selection at the building base. ELS/LCC Issues 07.29.98
Log
AC08.12.98.03 Complete roof and wall input concept ELS/CHPA 08.25.98 08.26.98
drawings. (IC07.01.98.02) Wal designs
should be complete before roof design begins,
and roof drawings will take about ten days
after that. Scuppers are not an issue.
AC08.26.98.01 Provide metal samples of color and finish for CC/ELS 5 09.09.98 10.07.98
selection (deleting 'and exterior mock ups'); 10.07.98
two of three received.
AC08.26.98.02 Clearly identify on the concept drawings the ELS/CC 09.09.98 09.09.98
location of each color, and determine quantity
of each of the vertical, horizontal and smooth
panels so the cost for custom colors for each
type can be assessed.
AC09.09.98.01 ELS issuance of exterior glass and stair ELS 09.17.98 09.23.98
design package to CC (IC07.01.98.03).
AC09.09.98.02 ELS to detail the desired exterior wall mock- ELS 4 09.23.98 10.07.98
up and proposed location at the site 09.30.98
(IC08.26.98.01).
AC09.09.98.03 Determine metal panel custom colors based on CC/ELS 2 10.07.98 10.07.98
ELS submitted color chips and quantities for
each of the colors.
AC09.09.98.04 Determine metal panel custom colors premium ELS/CC 2 10.07.98 10.07.98
cost based on economic order quantities.
AC09.09.98.05 Determine if roof valley lines to drain ELS/HW 09.23.98 09.23.98
locations can be accomplished with concrete
rather than being built up by PC.
AC09.23.98.01 Confirm concrete wall and roof deck at back ELS 10.07.98 10.07.98
of house low area.
AC10.07.98.01 Revise exterior wall mock-up detail; propose ELS 10.21.98 10.21.98

site location.
AC10.07.98.02 Provide drawing of alternate value engineered ELS 10.21.98 10.21.98
BOH metal panels; reduced parapet height.
AC10.07.98.03 Resolve number of layers of gypsum board as ELSJHSA 2 10.21.98 11.04.98
alternative to CMU to achieve accoustical 11.06.98
objective - Vomitory, etc. To be included in
Pricing Documents.
AC10.21.98.01 Provide enclosure mock-up pricing. LCC/CC 5 11.13.98 12.02.98
AC10.21.98.02 Coordinate interior finish support (interior HW/CC/ELS 11.04.98 11.04.98
studs and drywall) with high wall metal panel
suport girts.
AC10.21.98.03 Identify roofing material for each roofing ELS/LCC 7 11.04.98 12.02.98
section, esp. low canopy roof visible from /PC 6 12.16.98
lobby balcony - aggregate/paver roofscape;
provide pricing and samples.
AC11.04.98.01 Resolve mock-up schedule: 2 months to ELS/LCC 1 12.02.98 12.16.98
fabricate panels; 2 months to erect mock-up, /CC/ NS
make changes, and make decision (3 months to
fabricate building panels; 120 to 150 day
building critical path).
AC11.04.98.02 Resolve door acoustical ratings. Will not have ELS/JHSA 12.02.98 12.02.98
ratings.
AC12.02.98.01 Determine if a mock-up(s) of exterior wall will NS 12.07.98
be required; to be price based. Ordering,
fabricating, erecting, and making decisions
based upon the mock-up are critical path
tasks (IC09.09.98.01).
D. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire
Protection
AD07.01.98.01 Post Drawings on FTP site. CHPA 3 07.06.98 08.12.98
08.12.98
AD07.01.98.02 Provide/confirm audio system power JHSA 07.07.98 07.07.98
requirements to TEE.
AD07.01.98.03 Provide/confirm audio system cooling JHSA 07.07.98 07.07.98
requirements to CHPA.
AD07.01.98.04 Provide/confirm emergency power items to ELS 07.08.98 07.14.98
TEE/CHPA.
AD07.01.98.05 Provide/confirm normal and emergency loads CHPA 7 07.08.98 07.30.98
to TEE. 07.30.98
AD07.01.98.06 Provide/confirm architectural/theatrical AA 07.08.98 07.08.98
lighting and video power loads to TEE/CHPA.
AD07.01.98.07 Resolve location of main electrical room (162) ELS/TEE/ 5 07.08.98 08.12.98
and electronics storage and shop (158) to CHPA/LC 08.12.98
facilitate piping from cooling tower. LCC to C
provide pricing input. Not applicable due to
commissary design change.
AD07.01.98.08 Provide pipe/duct weights to HW CHPA 07.14.98 07.14.98

AD07.01.98.09 Provide concession/food service electrical NS/ELS 07.08.98 08.26.98
loads to TEE/CHPA. Revise food service 08.26.98
loads due to program change. Note:
Concession charts were received and show
equipment loads and revised floor plan raise
the cost from the current estimate.
AD07.01.98.10 Provide CATV and Data information to TEE. NS/JHSA/A Issues 07.29.98
A Log
AD07.01.98.11 Provide elevator electrical loads/data to TEE. ELS/LCC 07.08.98 07.08.98
AD07.01.98.12 Provide life safety [and exit sign loads] (Rolf ELS 07.08.98 07.29.98
Jensen Assoc.) to TEE.
AD07.01.98.13 Provide/confirm location of raceway loads to AA/JHSA 5 07.14.98 08.12.98
HW/TEE/CHPA. 08.12.98
AD07.01.98.14 Provide transformer sizes to TEE. AA/JHSA 07.14.98 07.14.98
AD07.01.98.15 Provide/confirm general lighting loads to TEE 07.14.98 07.14.98
CHPA.
AD07.01.98.16 Provide emergency power motor sizes to TEE. CHPA 07.14.98 07.14.98
AD07.01.98.17 Provide fire pump information to TEE. WSFP 07.14.98 07.14.98
AD07.01.98.18 Provide concession/food service layout NS/ELS 2 07.14.98 08.12.98
information (Volume Services). Big picture 07.31.98
matrix: 3000 SF
AD07.01.98.19 Air zones approval; block out areas served by NS/CHPA 7 07.14.98 08.12.98
AHU's for review (zones of operation; zones / 07.30.98
for control, ID07.01.98.02). MMC/EL
S
AD07.15.98.01 Confirm subcontractor participation in FE 07.22.98 07.22.98
evaluating on-line project management
approach.
AD07.15.98.02 Resolve sheet metal duct work design; provide CHPA/LL 7 07.20.98 08.12.98
to JHSA for approval. 07.31.98
AD07.15.98.03 Provide feedback/approval of sheet metal JHSA 2 07.22.98 08.12.98
ductwork design to ELS (ID07.01.98.01). 08.03.98
AD07.15.98.04 Provide lobby lighting loads to ELS. TEE/AA 07.22.98 07.22.98
AD07.15.98.05 Meet with cablevision to explore infrastructure NS Thtrcl/Int 07.29.98
requirements for in-house television system.
AD07.15.98.06 Lighting operations approval; block out areas TEE/AA 07.28.98 07.28.98
served by lighting - zones of operation/control
(IE07.01.98.02).
AD07.15.98.07 Coordinate location of proscenium deluge WSFP/H 6 07.28.98 08.12.98
system with other systems. W/ 08.05.98
CHPA/A
A
AD07.29.98.01 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting - WSFP/H 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
operation, pipe size, curtain physical make-up. W/
(ID08.12.98.04) CHPA/A
A/
LCC/ELS
AD07.29.98.02 Follow up acoustics meeting after JHSA JHSA/EL 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
reviews sheetmetal design. (ID08.12.98.02) S/
CHPA/LC

C
AD07.29.98.03 Resolve safety requirements for proscenium WSFP/C 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
deluge system with Rolf Jensen. HPA/
(ID08.12.98.03) AA/LCC
AD07.29.98.04 Resolve supply duct routing from house to CHPA/JH 2 Issues Log 08.12.98
mechanical chase/AHU. Reworded as: House SA/
duct route and outlet locations move to follow ELS/LCC
new architectural layout. (ID08.12.98.04)
AD07.29.98.05 Resolve additional MEPF requirements for CHPA/TEE 08.05.98 08.26.98
adding commissary kitchen. WSFP/FE/L 08.26.98
CC
AD07.29.98.06 Resolve additional requirements for CHPA/TEE 08.05.98 08.26.98
addition/revision to suite level toilet rooms. ELS/LCC 08.26.98
Add to floor plan.
AD07.29.98.07 Coordinate ceiling acoustical panels and house CHPA/JHSA Issues Log 08.12.98
air outlets. Now combines with / ELS/LCC
AD07.29.98.04 above, becoming
ID08.12.98.04.
AD07.29.98.08 Add acoustics value stream into project value JHSA/LCC Issues Log 08.12.98
stream. (ID08.12.98.05)
AD07.29.98.09 Meet onsite with Texas Utilities to permanent TEE/ELS/H 08.12.98 08.26.98
and temporary electric service. A/ 08.19.98
FE/LCC/NS
AD08.12.98.01 Resolve roof drainage design to complete CHPA/ELS 08.25/98 08.26.98
enclosure package. (Related item
AA08.12.98.10)
AD08.12.98.02 Determine ASHRAE design temperatures. NS 08.19.98 08.26.98
Consider adjusting D/FW design standards
due to temperature change condition.
AD08.12.98.03 Verify exact locations on marked plan to be NS 08.19.98 09.09.98
designated 'smoking areas'. 09.09.98
AD08.12.98.04 Determine effect of suite smoking areas on CHPA 2 09.09.98 09.23.98
mechanical system. 09.16.98
AD08.12.98.05 Reconfigure ductwork at auditorium hard CHPA/M 5 08.26.98 09.23.98
ceiling for JHSA/ELS review. MC/ 09.10.98
LL/LCC
AD08.12.98.06 Team to test assumptions for delivery duct CHPA/M 2 08.26.98 09.23.98
layouts in complying with acoustic CC/ 09.17.98
requirements. Note: Revised duct plans will LL/LCC
be available by 4 Sept. 98. Drawings to JHSA
09.10.98.
AD08.12.98.07 Prepare summary list of electrical load TEE 08.19.98 08.26.98
requirements for presentation to Texas
Utilities.
AD08.26.98.01 Determine roof drain pipe routing and resolve CHPA 5 09.09.98 10.07.98
potential pipe and roof drain locations
conflicts.
AD08.26.98.02 Confirm roof drainage overflow design with CHPA 09.09.98 09.09.98
Grand Prairie.

AD08.26.98.03 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting - WSFP/H 2 09.09.98 09.09.98
operation, pipe size, curtain physical make-up W/ Move to
(AD07.29.98.01 & AD07.29.98.07) CHPA/A Theatrical
(ID08.12.98.01). A/LCC/E
LS
AD08.26.98.04 Obtain sound/power ratings and provide to CHPA/M 2 09.09.98 09.23.98
JHSA. Waiting on Cook Fan ratings. MC 09.16.98
AD08.26.98.05 Provide concept equipment layout for food NS/CI 7 09.09.98 09.23.98
service areas. Detailed design upon vendor 09.23.98
selection.
AD08.26.98.06 Determine increased power requirements for NS/CI/TEE 09.09.98 09.09.98
food service areas.
AD09.09.98.01 House duct route and outlet locations move to CHPA/JHSA 09.09.98 09.09.98
follow new architectural layout / ELS/LCC
(AD07.29.98.04, ID08.12.98.04).
AD09.09.98.02 Determine routing/enclosure of exterior duct at CHPA 09.09.98 09.09.98
front of house (ID08.26.98.02).
AD09.09.98.03 Review implications of two-hour house/lobby ELS/CHPA/ 09.09.98 09.23.98
separation vs 21,000 cfm lobby smoke LCC 09.23.98
exhaust (selected), life safety and cost.
AD09.09.98.04 Provide per Texas barrier-free access, a ELS 09.09.98 09.23.98
unisex single toilet for each grouping of mens 09.23.98
and womans toilets.
AD09.09.98.05 Provide building infrastructure requirements NS/JHSA/A 09.23.98 09.23.98
for CATV, theatrical, and Data information to A
TEE. Identify the spaces within the building;
09.29/30.98 Meeting (ID07.01.98.10).
AD09.09.98.06 Follow up acoustics meeting after JHSA JHSA/ELS/ 09.23.98 09.23.98
reviews sheetmetal design (AD07.29.98.02, CHPA/LCC
ID08.12.98.04, ID08.12.98.02).
AD09.09.98.07 Coordinate duct sizing and delivery design CHPA/LL 09.23.98 09.23.98
options.
AD09.09.98.08 Review acoustical requirements for mech. ELS/JHS 5 09.23.98 10.07.98
equipment wall systems, central plant A
(formerly AC09.09.98.06) From E/A 09.23.98
AD09.09.98.09 Front Mech.Room: CMU walls may be ELS/JHS 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
needed acoustically; currently metal A
studs/drywall;may require heavier walls (8"
block w/2 layers gypsum) or change in
building envelope enlarging mech.room
(formerly AC09.09.98.07);JHSA sketch to
HW.From E/A 09.23.98
AD09.23.98.01 Provide data for small ahu/fan coil unit in CHPA 09.30.98 10.07.98
basement mechanical equipment room.
AD09.23.98.02 Provide TEE/FE scope of design as a basis for TEE 10.07.98 10.07.98
preconstruction letter agrement and projected
cash flow.
AD09.23.98.03 Confirm/revise layout of electrical room and TEE 10.07.98 10.07.98
electrical yard.

AD09.23.98.04 Provide for 4 to 6 food service exhaust duct CHPA/CI/ 1 10.07.98 10.21.98
fans and returns in lobby area (original ELS 1 12.01.98
program included 2 to 3). Provide location of MMC/LL 2
kitchen supply fans(AD10.07.98.04). Holding
for concession consultant equipment concept.
AD10.07.98.01 Determine effect of concession smoking areas CHPA 10.07.98 From S/C
on mechanical systems. (ID09.23.01) 10.07.98
AD10.07.98.02 Determine the most effective design/cost CHPA 2 09.23.98 From S/C
solution to provide overflow roof drainage. 5 10.07.98 10.07.98
Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon 7 10.14.98 11.04.98
Cherry, Building Official, City of Grand 11.04.98
Prairie (AA09.09.98.05 & AA09.23.98.02).
Provide sketch/documentation to GP.
AD10.07.98.03 Provide revised AHU layout at FOH CHPA 10.21.98 10.21.98
mechanical rooms.
AD10.07.98.04 Meet with cablevision to explore infrastructure NS # 08.07.98 09.23.98
requirements/formats for in-house live 09.23.98
broadcast and closed circuit television system
(AD07.15.98.05). Identify options/design
responsibility/proposal/scope of work.
AD10.07.98.05 Revise Food Service/Commissary program NS/VS/ELS 08.05.98 08.26.98
including upper level food service capabilities 08.26.98
(IE07.01.98.01). (Scheme B received from
ELS during the meeting.)
AD10.07.98.06 Revise Suite Level toilet room NS/CHPA/E 08.05.98 08.26.98
program/design. NextStage to review layouts. LS 08.26.98
AD10.07.98.08 Develop commissary utility metering level. NS/CII 08.14.98 08.26.98
AD10.07.98.09 Confirm that structural engineers have JHS/SP 7 08.14.98 09.10.98
theatrical dimming rack and Audio amplifier 09.23.98
rack loads.
AD10.07.98.10 Clarify the conceptual design/layout in the ELS/CI 7 09.09.98 09.23.98
concessions area relative to headroom 09.23.98
condition.
AD10.07.98.11 Define type and size of stage rear doors for ELSl/AA 09.09.98 09.09.98
framing input.
AD10.07.98.12 Finalize plan layout as a result of adding ELS/NS 08.14.98 08.26.98
commissary.
AD10.07.98.13 Provide location of kitchen supply fans. CHPA 1 10.21.98 Combined
11.04.98 Above
AD10.07.98.14 Revise roof drain design to reflect roof CHPA 10.21.98 10.21.98
changes.
AD10.07.98.15 Review commissary program and confirm NS 10.21.98 10.21.98
food service exhaust duct fans and returns.
New concept.
AD10.07.98.16 Resolve need for fire pump; determine water CHPA/RJA/ 10.21.98 10.21.98
pressure required at roof and proscenium. WSFP/ELS
AD10.07.98.17 Confirm connection of fire pump with respect TEE/FE 10.21.98 10.21.98
to main and emergency generator.
AD10.07.98.18 Provide layout and size of BOH (rear) duct CHPA/LL 2 10.21.98 11.04.98
runs for acoustical analysis. 11.04.98

AD10.07.98.19 Provide layout showing telephone, data, and NS 5 10.21.98 11.04.98
CCTV locations to be serviced with empty 10.28.98
conduit. Provide CATV and data information 11.04.98
to TEE (AD07.01.98.10/IE07.29.98.01).
AD10.07.98.20 Meet with telephone company to review the NS/ELS/ 5 10.21.98 12.02.98
project. Coordinate with NS. NS to negotiate TEE/ FE 7 11.04.98
costs. 12.02.98
AD10.07.98.21 Review/confirm normal and emergency power TEE 2 10.21.98 12.02.98
loads. Schedule requires updating. 2 11.04.98
12.02.98
AD10.21.98.01 Send sketch to Texas Utilities for new location TEE/FE 5 10.14.98 11.04.98
of on-site pad mounted equipment (switchgear 5 10.23.98
location, pad sizes) (AA10.07.98.04). 11.04.98
Develop alternate options for TU
consideration.
AD10.21.98.02 Provide latest mechanical unit layouts; verify CHPA 11.04.98 11.04.98
weight and layout of new units.
AD10.21.98.03 Review/mark-up underseat air slot bands. CHPA 11.04.98 11.04.98
AD10.21.98.04 Completion of Electrical Pricing Documents, TEE 5 11.09.98 11.16.98
including complete underground/underslab 5 12.16.98
electrical construction documents
(ID10.07.98.03). One line and
recepticle/power drawings only submitted.
AD10.21.98.05 Reconsider deluge system decision/design ELS/CHP 2 11.04.98 12.02.98
based upon Rolf Jensen Associates review. A/ WSFP 1 12.16.98
Deluge "A" included in pricing documents.
Alternate:"B" closely spaced sprinkler heads
reacting individually;also, proscenium
reduction system functions as a fire curtain.
AD11.04.98.01 Control of AHU noise as it travels down the CHPA/JHSA 12.02.98 12.02.98
duct path (ID10.07.98.01). Base units
changed.
AD11.04.98.02 Outline options for acoustical consideration CHPA/JHSA 12.02.98 12.02.98
(ID10.07.98.02).
AD11.04.98.03 Followup overflow drain issues with Sharon CHPA 2 12.02.98 12.16.98
Cherry, Building Official, City of Grand
Prairie. Awaiting return response.
AD11.04.98.04 Provide gas meter information - size, TSPH/CH 5 12.02.98 12.16.98
clearance. PA
AD11.04.98.05 Based upon consessionaire design provide gas CHPA 2 12.02.98 12.16.98
requirements for cook areas.
AD11.04.98.06 Resolve generator requirements. CHPA/TEE 12.02.98 12.02.98
AD11.04.98.07 Confirm assumptions regarding lighting CHPA/TEE 12.02.98 Issues
controls (ID12.02.98.01). Log
12.02.98
AD12.02.98.01 Decision regarding code/security acceptance FE 12.16.98
of open yard flexibility w/o having separations
between electrical switch gear, cooling tower,
etc.
AD12.02.98.02 Provide Electrical Specifications. TEE 12.16.98

E. Theatrical/Interiors
AE07.01.98.01 Send/fax theatrical event proforma to NS 07.02.98 07.02.98
AA/JHSA.
AE07.01.98.02 JHSA and SPL to meet to review audio JHSA/SP 7 07.07.98 08.12.98
concepts. L 08.12.98
AE07.01.98.03 AA and PAL to review theatrical lighting AA/PAL 07.07.98 08.12.98
concepts.
AE07.01.98.04 Confirmation of theatrical systems based on AA/PAL/JH 07.07.98 08.12.98
event proforma. SA /SPL
AE07.01.98.05 Confirm/resolve size of mid-house control AA/JHSA/N 07.07.98 08.26.98
position to ELS. S 08.12.98
AE07.01.98.06 Develop alternative audience/house reduction ELS/AA 07.10.98 08.12.98
designs based upon new design parameters.
AE07.15.98.01 Resolve house reduction system options NS 2 07.22.98 08.12.98
(AF07.01.98.05). Provide loads for both 08.05.98
options to HW.
AE07.15.98.02 Resolve front lighting and vertical side box AA/PA 5 07.28.98 08.12.98
boom positions (probably 2). Provide loads 07.31.98
to HW.
AE07.15.98.03 Resolve seat selection options; obtain chair NS/AA/E 5 Issues Log 08.12.98
samples and confirm dimensional envelope. LS
(IE08.12.98.04)
AE09.09.98.01 Follow up proscenium deluge system meeting - WSFP/H 2 09.09.98 Issues
operation, pipe size, curtain physical make-up: W/ 09.23.98 Log
Resolve curtain opaque surface. CHPA/A 09.23.98
(AD07.29.98.01 & A/
AD07.29.98.07)(ID08.12.98.01) LCC/ELS
(IE09.23.98.01).
AE09.09.98.02 Obtain chair samples and confirm within AA/JHSA 5 09.23.98 12.02.98
current seating envelope /ELS/ 5 10.07.98
(AE07.15.98.03,IE08.12.98.04). NS to meet LCC 6 10.21.98
with ELS to make a decision on seating 1 11.04.98
(IE08.12.98.01). Review metal perforated vs. 12.02.98
plastic bottom seats, and provide observations/
concerns to NS.
AE09.09.98.03 Resolve life safety requirements for ELS/CHP 09.23.98 Issues
proscenium deluge system (wet fire curtain) Log
with Rolf Jensen (AD07.29.98.03) 09.23.98
(IE09.23.98.01).
AE09.09.98.04 Resolve alternate designs for mid-house AA/JHSA/N 09.23.98 09.23.98
control position. Row of removable seats in S/ ELS
front.
AE09.09.98.05 Resolve structurally and operationally whether NS/AA/ELS 09.23.98 09.23.98
Box Booms will track or be fixed point loads.
Will be riggged.
AE09.09.98.06 Determine effect of image magnification on AA/ELS 09.23.98 09.23.98
walls and ceiling. Provide 2-20 foot diameter
screens; projector to be 30 feet out.

AE09.09.98.07 Prepare conceptual design for commissary and CI/ELS 09.23.98 09.23.98
loading dock area, including trash compactor
location.
AE09.09.98.08 The commissary/loading dock changes need to ELS 2 09.23.98 10.07.98
be reflected on the ELS drawings, and
provided to Creative Ind.
AE09.09.98.09 Submit Life Safety Program to Grand Prairie ELS 10.16.98 10.21.98
(IE08.12.98.05).
AE09.23.98.01 Provide layout sketch for other equipment - TEE 2 10.07.98 12.02.98
electrical, ie. disconnects - in the 7 10.21.98
amplifier/dimmer rooms. Review size of 11.04.98
amplifyer/dimmer room (AE10.21.98.01).
AE10.07.98.01 Resolve forestage rigging grid issue. Confirm AA/JHSA 10.07.98 10.07.98
both structurals and 3-D model are based on
10' o.c., 4000# pt.lds; maximum gross
tonnage, 3300#. (IE08.12.98.03)
AE10.07.98.02 Determine the extent of theatrical lighting ELS/AA 10.07.98 10.07.98
system that is necessary, i.e. dimmer racks, AA/ELS/NS
etc. to be provided as a part of the base
building capital investment. NS developed
description of essential equipment.
(IE09.09.98.01)
AE10.07.98.03 Review proscenium deluge system:operation, WSFP/HW/ 10.07.98 10.07.98
3in pipe size, volume, curtain makeup: CHPA/AA/
Resolve life safety requirements,(wet fire LCC/ELS
curtain/curtain opaque surface) with Rolf
Jensen.(AD07.29.98.01 & AD07.29.98.07)
(ID08.12.98.01)(AD07.29.98.07)
(09.09.98.01/.03).
AE10.07.98.04 Forward acoustical testing reports from Irwin AA 7 10.14.98 11.04.98
Seating to JHSA. 7 10.21.98
11.04.98
AE10.07.98.05 Relocate Electrical room to opposite side of ELS 10.14.98 10.21.98
AV Room; identify size of AV Room; and,
distribute for verification.
AE10.07.98.06 Provide revised auditorium backgrounds. ELS 10.18.98 10.21.98
AE10.07.98.07 Provide systems plans for each level including AA/JHSA 10.21.98 10.21.98
wiring devices and conduit layout.
(IE09.23.98.02)
AE10.07.98.08 Video//TV broadcast decision. NS/JHSA/A 10.21.98 10.21.98
(IE07.15.98.01) A
AE10.07.98.09 Resolve use of series of gratings instead of "no ELS/AA 2 10.21.98 11.04.98
fall protection." 11.04.98
AE10.07.98.10 Review combination of 3-seat sizes by section ELS/AA 9 10.21.98 12.02.98
to arrive at a final seating plan; adjust aisles 11.04.98
and vomitories (Now Fixed). Irwin Seating to 12.02.98
meet w/NS. Irwin to do seat layout/count.
AE10.07.98.11 Obtain sample of Irwin metal pan perforated LCC 5 10.21.98 Issues
seat with curved lip. No differential envelope 5 11.04.98 Log
(IE12.02.98.01). 12.02.98 12/02.98

AE10.21.98.01 Review size of amplifyer/dimmer room. ELS/AA/JHS 11.04.98 See
A Above
AE10.21.98.02 Send new pit layout/dimensions to JHSA and ELS 10.28.98 11.04.98
AA for review (IE08.26.98.02).
AE10.21.98.03 Review/revise audience reduction system NS/ELS/AA 11.11.98 11.04.98
(IE10.07.98.02).
AE10.21.98.04 Review design program with NS independent ELS/AA/JHS 12.02.98 12.02.98
producer/ reviewer, Peter Wexler. Ongoing. A
AE10.21.98.05 Review proposed 3 reconfigurations and sizes AA/JHSA 2 11.04.98 12.02.98
for control booth/ FOH mixing position 12.02.98
necessitated by radial seating change. Resolve
constraints
AE11.04.98.01 Revisit discussion regarding height of grid NS 11.04.98 11.04.98
above proscenium. Proscenium: Rock 50 FT,
Broadway 32 FT Min. (IE10.07.98.03).
AE12.02.98.01 Send copy of Production Arts Lighting GMP LCC 12.04.98
proposal to NS/ELS.
AE12.02.98.02 Raise Stage House trim height from 80 Ft to ELS/HW 12.16.98
81Ft-3In by lightening stage house steel and
adjustin roof pitch. Requires addding back
rigging pit: 6Ft by 60Ft of basement space,
per earlier drawing issue.
AE12.02.98.03 Send picture and dimensions of typical sound JHSA 12.16.98
board to ELS, for selection of appropriate
sized sissor lift.
AE12.02.98.04 Develop actual speaker locations/'look' of the JHSA/SPL 12.16.98
proscenium; development meeting next week
to generate describing graphics.
AE12.02.98.05 Colors and materials for lobby and house NS/ELS 01.11.98
beign pulled by logo/ color development;
colors and materials presentation after January
1st.
F. Project Support
AF07.01.98.01 Approval of audio and theatrical lighting NS 07.07.98 07.07.98
concepts.
AF07.01.98.02 Issue project insurance memorandum for LCC 07.07.98 07.07.98
discussion.
AF07.01.98.03 Issue subcontractor preconstruction LCC Issues Log 08.26.98

agreements for discussion, (IF08.26.98.01).
(Crown Corr agreement issued).
AF07.01.98.04 Resolve design agreement legal issues and NS/ELS 5 07.10.98 Issues
complete ELS design agreement. Effort 5 10.21.98 Log
continuing. Documents may not be filed for 10.21.98
permits until legal issues are resolved and
designers can be identified in the drawing
title block (IF10.21.98.01).
AF07.01.98.05 Approval of audience/house reduction design NS Thtrcl/Int 07.29.98
solution.

AF07.01.98.06 Identify potential national vendor partners. LCC/ELS Issues Log 08.26.98
Effort continuing (IF08.26.98.02).
AF07.01.98.07 Identify project components not currently LCC/ELS Issues Log 08.26.98
represented by team. Effort continuing.
AF07.01.98.08 Update and issue current project budget, as LCC 07.14.98 07.29.98
revised.
Project Logs:
AF07.01.98.09 • Develop a consistent format for project logs LCC 07.07.98 07.09.98
for review.
AF07.01.98.10 • Refine meeting action items, issue/maintain LCC 07.07.98 07.09.98
Action Items Log.
AF07.01.98.11 • Develop, issue and maintain Issues Log, and LCC 07.10.98 07.09.98
Decision Log.
AF07.01.98.12 Develop, issue and maintain Project Document ELS 07.14.98 07.29.98
Log.
AF07.01.98.13 • Approval of project logs and format. NS 07.14.98 07.15.98
AF07.15.98.01 Amend log format to show Issue, Action Item, LCC/NS 07.29.98 07.29.98
Decision trail; each item to have a discrete
identity.
AF07.15.98.02 Probability of construction start date - Status NS Issues Log 08.26.98
Report (IF08.26.98.03).
AF07.15.98.03 Submit agreement for engineering and other NS/HA Issues Log 08.26.98
consultant services (AF07.15.98.04).
AF07.15.98.04 Submit agreement for architectural services ELS/HA 07.28.98 07.29.98
and other consultant design agreements.
AF07.15.98.05 Resolve agreement with food service NS 07.28.98 07.28.98
concessionaire.
AF07.15.98.06 Revise estimate schedule for GMP. NS/LCC 07.28.98 07.28.98
AF07.29.98.01 Prepare target cash flow estimate for both NS/ELS/LC 08.12.98 09.09.98
consultant design and subcontractor design C 08.26.98
efforts.
AF07.29.98.02 Expand current summary project budget to LCC Issues Log 08.26.98
detailed estimate (IF08.26.98.04)
AF07.29.98.03 Electronic communication of project NC/ELS/ 7 08.12.98 10.07.98
information. Install project documents on LCC 10.07.98
communication web site server
(IF07.15.98.06).
AF07.29.98.04 Include Food Service consultant, Creative NS/LCC 08.12.98 08.12.98
Industries, in project progress meetings. 08.26.98
AF07.29.98.05 Review and report on the status of document ELS 08.12.98 08.12.98
preparation.
AF08.12.98.01 Prepare notes from 8/6/98 meeting with Grand ELS 09.09.98 09.09.98
Prairie building officials.
AF08.12.98.02 Prepare list of proposed permit packages and ELS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
timeline. (Timeline preparation moved to
Issues Log item IF09.09.98.01.)
AF08.26.98.01 Issue Crown Corr Agreement. NS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
AF08.26.98.02 Issue Pacific Agreement. NS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
AF08.26.98.03 Issue Havens Agreement. NS/LCC 09.09.98 09.09.98
AF08.26.98.04 Define format/dates for ELS consultants ELS/LCC Deleted 09.09.98

design scope of work. No one recognized this
as an action item or was a duplicate.
AF08.26.98.00 Resolve design agreement legal issues with NS 09.09.98 To AF 07
ELS. 09.23.98 .01.98.04
AF08.26.98.05 Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month ELS 5 09.09.98 Combined
for ELS and their consultants based on current 5 10.21.98 Below
value stream (AF10.21.98.01).
AF08.26.98.06 Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month LCC 5 09.09.98 Combined
for LCC and consultants based on current 5 10.21.98 Below
value stream (AF10.21.98.01).
AF08.26.98.07 Prepare cash flow to January 1999 by month NS 09.09.98 09.09.98
for NS and consultants based on current value
stream.
AF08.26.98.08 Issue SPL Agreement letter (IF10.21.98.02). NS/AA/L 5 09.09.98 Issues
CC 5 10.21.98 Log
10.21.98
AF09.09.98.01 Bob Timmel to review list of cost increases NS/LCC 09.11.98 09.14.98
with Bruce, Pam and Mike on Friday 09.11.98
AF09.09.98.02 Bob Timmel to review list of cost increases NS 09.14.98 09.14.98
with Leo3.
AF09.23.98.01 Prepare permit package timeline ELS/LCC 10.07.98 10.07.98
(AF08.12.98.02/ IF09.09.98.01).
AF09.23.98.02 Continuing improvement in the planning All 10.07.98 Issues
process: improving ability to make quality Log
assignments and ability to meet commitments 10.07.98
(IF10.07.98.01).
AF10.07.98.01 Review with each team the most effective way NS/LCC 10.21.98 10.21.98
to proceed with the development of
construction documents and target cash flows
(IF07.15.98.03).
AF10.21.98.01 Prepare project workplan/target cash ELS/LCC 5 11.04.98 12.02.98
flows(w/manhours): design cash flows assume 12.02.98
12.21.98 construction start (AF08.26.98.05,
AF08.26.98.06, IF10.07.98.02).
AF10.21.98.01 Prepare project workplan/target cash LCC 7 12.02.98 12.16.98
flows(w/manhours): construction cash flows
assume 02.15.98 construction start and18.5
month construction schedule.
AF11.04.98.01 Early construction/other work to achieve NS/ELS/ 1 12.02.98 12.16.98
visual site impact. LCC
AF11.04.98.02 Develop early value stream for remaining LCC/NS/ 7 12.02.98 12.16.98
critical early preconstruction items of work. ELS/ HA
AF12.02.98.01 Blueline Online: recommendation to not ELS 12.16.98
implement until the site is stable.
JDK End of Action Items

APPENDIX D: NEXT STAGE ISSUES LOG
During Next Stage teleconferences, issues requiring action beyond the coming two week
period were placed in an issues log, from which they then moved onto the action items
log when the timing was appropriate. Issues were numbered in the same way as were
action items, except for the IA, IB, etc. prefix.
Linbeck Next Stage Development

The Texas ShowPlace
Issues
Log
As Of December 02, 1998 Project Progress Meeting Revised: 12.14.98
Date Originated- Item Description Action By Target
Item No.
Date
A.
Site/Civil
IA08.26.98.04 Relocation of on-site pad mounted equipment by HA/TEE

Texas Utilities.
IA09.09.98.02 Legal Action filed against NS, by local radio station, NS
re: within 2400 ft, operating since 1950's, 'sole
station', fear of our metal building.
IA10.21.98.01 Select electrical yard surface material; if paved, then HA
concrete.
IA11.04.98.01 Determine the most effective way to contract for the HA/LCC Action
site work (AA12.02.98.05). Log
12.02.98
B.
Structural
IB08.12.98.01 Review utilization of prefab stairs (IC08.12.98.02, ELS/LCC Action

AB12.02.98.04). Log
12.02.98
Ballard D-23 Last Planner

IB09.09.98.03 Review structural connections and heavy steel HSC/SPI/PB
members. (AB08.26.98.04 & IB07.01.98.01)
IB09.23.98.01 Holding an 02.15.99 start of construction requires NS/LCC/HSC/ SPI
steel mill order by 01.15.99; detailing to start by
02.15.99; fabrication to start 03.29.99, and erection
to start on 05.10.99
IB09.23.98.02 After 3D Model, Foundation and Structural Permit HW/ELS
submisssion target 01.04.99 for a 02.05.99 receipt
of permit.
IB12.02.98.01 Mock-up color selection critical; NS moving on NS/ELS
other color decisions based on previously selected
building material colors.
IB12.02.98.02 Select aggregate/paver material for visible low roof; NS/ELS
aggregate is more cost effective if wind load is not
an issue.
IB12.02.98.03 Provide for access to lobby by larger equipment, NS/ELS
10Ft X 10FT, for automobile, large boom type lift to
access relamping.
IC07.29.98.01 Resolve material selection at the building base ELS/LCC
(AC08.12.98.04).
IC09.09.98.01 Determine if a mock-up(s) of exterior wall will be NS/ELS Action
required; to be price based (AC12.02.98.01). Log
12.02.98
D. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection
ID07.15.98.01 File application and pay fees for temporary power NS/LCC
and telephone four weeks before needed.
ID08.12.98.05 Add acoustics value stream into project value JHSA/LCC
stream.
ID08.26.98.01 Finalize concession design upon selection of NS/CI/ELS/ CHPA/TEE
concessionaire vendor.
ID10.21.98.01 Block diagram equipment layout by Levy NS/LR 12.08.98
Restaurants
ID12.02.98.01 Confirm assumptions regarding lighting controls. CHPA/TEE
Automated M/P systems can control other timed
systems, i.e. parking lighting, etc. Ongoing work
issue (AD11.04.98.07).
IE08.26.98.01 Seating count down from 6900 to 6400. May go up NS/ELS

to 6550 plus 256 for suites. Refer to memo of
08.27.98.
IE10.07.98.01 Evaluate continuing scaffolding or working up from LCC
structural platforms. Method of construction issue

to be decided by LCC.
IE12.02.98.01 Obtain sample of Irwin metal pan perforated seat LCC

with curved lip. No differential envelope
(AE10.07.98.11).
IE12.02.98.02 Irwin Seating critical path, 12 months from design to NS
delivery.
IE12.02.98.03 D.Flannery to layout TV camera positions in the NS
house.
IE12.02.98.04 Price Division 16 infrastructure for video and LCC
communication.
IE12.02.98.05 Provide video communication equipment price. JHSA
F. Project Support
IF07.01.98.01 Develop post-preconstruction contract documents for LCC

review.
IF07.15.98.02 Integrate preconstruction agreement with GMP LCC
contract.
IF07.15.98.04 Develop site utilization/mobilization plan. LCC
IF07.29.98.01 Define long term role of food service consultant. NS
IF07.29.98.02 Review/revise Value Stream in relation to schedule LCC
revisions, project changes, etc.
IF08.12.98.01 Resolution of project insurance program. All
IF08.26.98.01 Issue subcontractor preconstuction agreements for All
discussion, (AF07.01.98.03). Crown Corr
agreement issued.
IF08.26.98.02 Identify potential national vendor partners. Effort LCC/ELS
continuing (AF07.01.98.06).
IF08.26.98.03 Probability of construction start date - Status Report NS
(AF07.15.98.02).
IF08.26.98.04 Expand current summary project budget to detailed LCC
estimate when 3-D model has been
completed.(AF07.29.98.02/IF09.09.98.02).
IF09.09.98.03 Define a point in the design process where it makes NS/ELS/CHPA/TEE/LC
sense to stop additional work until a definitive C
construction start date is known; and, independent of
a construction start date.
IF09.09.98.04 Define how, and at what point, cost escalation NS/LCC
becomes a consideration.
IF10.07.98.01 Continuing improvement in the planning process; All
improving ability to make quality assignments and
ability to meet commitments (AF09.23.98.02).
IF10.21.98.01 Resolve design agreement legal issues and complete NS/ELS 11.28.98
ELS design agreement. Effort continuing.
Documents may not be filed for permits until legal
issues are resolved and designers can be identified
in the drawing title block (AF07.01.98.04).
IF10.21.98.02 Issue SPL Agreement letter (AF08.26.98.08). NS/AA/LCC 12.16.98

IF10.21.98.03 Identify items critical to value stream and follow ALL
through; be clear about what should be on the value
stream.
IF12.02.98.01 Concession architect:Lawrence Berkely Associates. NS
Plans and room finishes to be sent to NS. Counters
and facade to be allowances; LCC to construct shell.
JDK End of Issues

APPENDIX E: NEXT STAGE DECISION LOG
Next Stage maintained a log of design decisions, numbered similarly to action items and
issues, but with a DA prefix for Site/Civil, DB for Structural, etc.
Decision Log
As Of December 02, 1998 Project Progress Meeting Revised: 12.14.98

Date Originated-Item Item Description Decision Decision
No.
By Date
A. Site/Civil
DA07.15.98.01 Retain the services of a TAS Accessibility NS:RT 07.15.98

Specialist.
DA07.15.98.02 There will be multiple collection points for CHPA:GP 07.15.98
storm and sanitary drainage around the building HA:JR
(IA07.01.98.03).
DA07.29.98.01 Specify same site and parking lighting fixtures NS:RT 07.29.98
as Lone Star Park, unless not feasible or too
costly.
DA07.29.98.02 Barrier Free Texas selected as Accessibility NS:RT/ELS 07.29.98
Specialist. :KS
DA07.29.98.03 Uncertain timetable does not allow taking NS:RT 07.29.98
borrow material from existing sewer contractor.
DA08.12.98.01 Use existing lighting for Road D, rewired for NS:RT 08.12.98
new/joint operation with Lone Star Park.
DA08.12.98.02 Grading permit approval does not require ELS:DF 08.12.98
architectural document submission.
DA08.26.98.01 Roadway and building relationships are not HA:JR 08.26.98
affected by the commissary.
DA08.26.98.02 Commissary Scheme A selected (reversal from NS:BC 08.26.98
Scheme B).
DA08.26.98.03 Roof drain overflow to be piped into primary CHPA:GP 08.26.98
drainage system.
DA09.09.98.01 Commence geotechnical exploration/drilling of NS:RT 09.09.98
LSP borrow material.
DA10.07.98.01 Utilize 55 foot light poles in parking area. TEE:CS 10.07.98
DA11.04.98.01 If GPISD material is available at the start of NS:RT 11.04.98
construction, then will make an offer for
subgrade material for automobile parking.
Ballard E-27 Last Planner

B. Structural
DB07.15.98.01 Cantilever balcony structure is not practical nor JA:HW 07.15.98

feasible; cross aisles raised to make cantilever KS:ELS 08.26.98
work.
DB07.29.98.01 Tapered beams will be utilized to support the HW:JA/ 07.29.98
balcony. ELS:KS
DB08.12.98.01 There will be no electrical point loads in the TEE:CS 08.12.98
structure greater than 500 lbs (AB07.01.98.08).
DB08.12.98.02 Design criteria for building exterior will be HW:RT 08.12.98
based upon wind tunnel test results
(AB07.01.98.14).
DB08.12.98.03 Resolved audience reduction and box beam ELS:KS / 08.12.98
loads and location. AA:AS
DB08.12.98.04 Proceed with structural design based upon NS:RT 08.12.98
existing perimeter envelope and seating
platform.
DB08.12.98.05 Extend four week steel fabrication schedule HSC:JK 08.12.98
from 4 weeks to 6 weeks (IB07.15.98.03 /
AB08.12.98.01).
DB08.12.98.06 Resolved low roof impact on structural design NS:BC 08.12.98
by selecting concession scheme 'B'. Reversed to NS:BC 08.26.98
Scheme A.
DB08.12.98.07 Project will not start construction 09.15.98; NS:RT 08.12.98
and, will not utilize warehouse steel.
DB08.12.98.08 Acceptable construction tolerance on seating is ELS:KS 08.12.98
1/2" per riser, platform to platform.
DB09.09.98.01 Initial steel mill order must be made 1 month HSC:JK 09.09.98
prior to start of construction.
DB09.23.98.01 Complete 3D model check; hold-up connection NS:RT 09.23.98
study, detailing, and, trans-mission of 3-D
model until resolution of potential seating layout
change.
DB10.07.98.01 Eliminate CMU walls at FOH mechanical JHSA:RL 10.07.98
rooms due to revised AHU layout.
DB12.02.98.01 Revise column locations at rear of stage house BC:NS 12.02.98
to center the door.
DC07.01.98.01 Construction/shop drawings not necessary to CC:SC 07.01.98

provide GMP for exterior wall enclosure.
DC07.15.98.01 There is not a food service requirement for CHPA:GP 07.15.98
louvers (IC07.01.98.05).
DC07.15.98.02 The site has a "quiet area" designation relating JHSA:RL 07.15.98
to outside area noise.
DC07.15.98.03. GMP for roof can be provided without having PC:TZ 07.15.98
the roof design completed.

DC08.12.98.01 Walls to be rated R20 & Roof R30 Insulation CHPA:GP 08.12.98
(IC07.15.98.01 / AC08.12.98.02). LCC:BP
DC08.26.98.01 R30 Roof and R20 Wall will be the thermal 08.26.98
transmission ratings used.
DC08.26.98.02 Roof design by Pacific to follow Crown Corr PC:TZ 08.26.98
drawings.
DC10.07.98.01 Can specify custom metal panel colors based NS:RT 10.07.98
upon nominal price increase.
D. Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing/Fire Protection
DD07.15.98.01 TEE:CS to participate in evaluating online TEE:CS 07.15.98

project management approach.
DD07.29.98.01 FE:WMcD to participate in evaluating online FE:WMcD 07.29.98
project management approach.
DD08.12.98.01 The raceway loads will not affect structural TEE:CS 08.12.98
point loading (AD07.01.98.13). HW:RT
DD08.12.98.02 Location of main electrical room and electronics TEE:CS 08.12.98
storage will maintain existing relationship. LCC:MI
DD08.12.98.03 The back of the house will be a no smoking NS:BC 08.12.98
area.
DD08.12.98.04 Utilize 75 KVA as added electrical load from TEE:CS 08.12.98
commissary.
DD08.26.98.01 Proceed with concession/commissary MEP design based on 08.26.98
current 08.26.98 consultant concept/interim design criteria.
DD08.26.98.02 HVAC design is to be per ASHRAE standards, CHPA:GP 08.26.98
as shown in current Project System Description.
DD08.26.98.03 Provide individual climate control in suites. NS:BC 08.26.98
DD09.09.98.01 Smoking area includes suites and select NS:BC 09.09.98
concession areas (Rooms 123,124)
DD09.23.98.01 Proceed with 21,000 cfm lobby smoke exhaust NS:BC,ELS 09.23.98
as opposed to a house/lobby rated separation. :KS
CHPA:GP
DE07.01.98.01 NC 25 accepted as design criteria. JHSA:CJ 07.01.98

DE07.29.98.01 Provide suite level public toilet rooms; eliminate NS:RT 07.29.98
toilet rooms in suites, but provide infrastructure
MEP.
DE07.29.98.02 Provide expanded commissary kitchen and NS:RT 07.29.98
support areas.
DE08.26.98.01 Sound and lighting control house mix position JHSA:DR 08.26.98
cannot be moved into rear aisle due to ELS:KS
handicapped seating quota. This room requires
the size shown on sketch current as of 08.26.98.
DE08.26.98.02 Hold on final concession design for contracted NS:RT 08.26.98
concessionaire.

DE09.23.98.01 Box Booms will be rigged. NS:BC 09.23.98
DE10.07.98.01 Change seating configuration to curved format. NS:RT 10.07.98
DE10.07.98.02 Provide proscenium deluge system with opaque NS:RT 10.07.98
curtain. ELS:KS
DE10.07.98.03 There will not be a front balcony projection NS:BC 10.07.98
position.
DE10.07.98.04 Eliminate the rigging pit due to revised AA:AS 10.07.98
counterweight design.
DE10.21.98.01 Utilize Video/TV/Broadcast scope prepared by NS:BC 10.21.98
AA/JHSA to define building infrastructure to be
provided.
DE12.02.98.01 Approximately 95% of speakers will be rigged NS:BC 12.02.98
or stacked on stage; all lighting and sound AA:AS
support will be within 60 Feet of stage.
F. Project Support
DF07.01.98.01 It is not necessary to follow Factory Mutual NS:RT 07.01.98

design criteria.
DF07.01.98.02 Project progress meetings will utilize "Last NS:RT 07.01.98
Planner" style.
DF07.15.98.01 Design process to maintain 21 month value NS:RT 07.15.98
stream production schedule.
DF07.15.98.02 Multiple submissions will be made to the City to NS:RT 07.15.98
satisfy the needs of obtaining multiple permit
approvals.
DF09.23.98.01 Keep the design process progressing toward an NS:LL 09.23.98
11.30.98 construction start; the only reason to
hold up progress of the drawings is if it is not
efficient for the design to proceed.
End of Decisions

Nature of Construction Technology
Andrew S. Chang
Associate Professor
National Cheng Kung Univ., Taiwan
August 3, 2004
Technology Definition
Technology
Software
Procedures, ideas
Raw
Raw Material Inputs
Transformation Product or Meet
Flow Material Processes Service Customer
Inputs Outputs
Hardware Needs
Tools, machinery, techniques
03-09-2004 2
2 Nature of Construction Technology
Construction Activities in Technology Categories
Technology Classification Component Fabrications Jobsite Activities
1 Production of single pieces of customer orders Build by project Concrete pouring

Steel bar tying
2 Production of technically complex unit one by one
Small -batch
Small- Formwork
and unit
production 3 Fabrication of large equipmment in stages Precasting
4 Production of pieces in small batches Excavation
Production of components in large batches

5 Concrete batch plant
subsequently assembled diversity
Large-batch
Large-batch
and mass 6 Production of large batches, assembly line type Assembly house
production
7 Mass production Cement plants
Continuous process production combined with the

8 preparation of a product for sale by large-batch or Building materials
mass production methods
Continuous
Process Continuous process production of chemicals in
9 Paint plant
production batches
Continuous flow production of liquids, gases, and
10
solid shapes
03-09-2004 3
Technology Characteristics
Technology Unit Production Continuous
Mass Production
Characteristics (Construction) Process Production
Low
Process predictability Medium High
(High uncertainty)
Low
Mechanization Medium High
(Labor intensive)
Small
Batch Medium Large
(Pieces)
Integral Assembly or
Product complexity Dimensional
(Heavy integration) components
Low High
Standardization Middle
(Less duplication) (less types)
Production to orders Some inventory
Sale Inventory
(by contract) difficult to store
03-09-2004 4
Challenges of Construction Technical Change
1. Broken Junction 2. Jumbled Process
Flow 3. Vague Demands

from Unclear
Customers
Component Jobsite
Fabrication Activities
03-09-2004 5
Conclusion
• Advantages
- Constructed to orders with zero stock
- High flexibility
- Satisfactory social needs
• Limitations
- Be out of market pull
- Standardizing mainly construction components
- Based on market work availability
• Should pursue coordination and integration of jobsite
activities
03-09-2004 6
RETHINKING
CONSTRUCTION
THE REPORT OF THE CONSTRUCTION TASK FORCE

The report of the Construction Task Force to the

Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, on the scope for
improving the quality and efficiency of UK construction.
CONTENTS
Foreword by Sir John Egan 3
Executive Summary 4
CHAPTER 1
The Need to Improve 6
CHAPTER 2
Our Ambition for UK Construction 11
CHAPTER 3
Improving the Project Process 18
CHAPTER 4
Enabling Improvement 25
CHAPTER 5
Improving Housebuilding 32
CHAPTER 6
The Way Forward 35
Foreword by Sir John Egan
Foreword by Sir John Egan
Deputy Prime Minister
“It gives me great pleasure to present the report of the Construction Task Force on the scope
for improving quality and efficiency in UK construction.
A successful construction industry is essential to us all. we all benefit from high quality
housing, hospitals or transport infrastructure that are constructed efficiently. At its best
the UK construction industry displays excellence. But, there is no doubt that substantial
improvements in quality and efficiency are possible. Indeed, they are vital if the industry is
to satisfy all its customers and reap the benefits of becoming a world leader. The Construction
Task Force wishes to see the dramatic improvements already being demonstrated on client-led proj-
ects spread throughout UK construction.
In formulating our proposals for improving performance we have studied the experience that
has been gained at the cutting edge of construction and in other industries that have transformed
themselves in recent years. We have learnt that continuous and sustained improvement is
achievable if we focus all our efforts on delivering the value that our customers need, and if
we are prepared to challenge the waste and poor quality arising from our existing structures
and working practices.
We know that it is not easy to sustain radical improvement in an industry as diverse as

construction. But, we must do so to secure our future. Through the Task Force, the major
clients have committed themselves to driving forward the modernisation of the construction
industry. We look to Government, as the largest client, to join us. But, we are also issuing
a challenge to the construction industry to commit itself to change, so that, working together,
we can create a modern industry, ready to face the new millennium.”
Sir John Egan

Chairman of the Construction Task Force
3
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
• The UK construction industry at its best is excellent. Its capability to deliver the most
difficult and innovative projects matches that of any other construction industry in the
world (paragraph 3).
• Nonetheless, there is deep concern that the industry as a whole is under-achieving.

It has low profitability and invests too little in capital, research and development and
training. Too many of the industry's clients are dissatisfied with its overall performance
(paragraphs 4-6).
• The Task Force's ambition for construction is informed by our experience of radical change
and improvement in other industries, and by our experience of delivering improvements
in quality and efficiency within our own construction programmes. We are convinced
that these improvements can be spread throughout the construction industry and made
available to all its clients (paragraphs 15, 16 and 18).
• We have identified five key drivers of change which need to set the agenda for the
construction industry at large: committed leadership, a focus on the customer,
integrated processes and teams, a quality driven agenda and commitment to
people (paragraph 17).
• Our experience tells us that ambitious targets and effective measurement of performance
are essential to deliver improvement. We have proposed a series of targets for annual
improvement and we would like to see more extensive use of performance data by the
industry to inform its clients (paragraphs 19-22).
• Our targets are based on our own experience and evidence that we have obtained from
projects in the UK and overseas. Our targets include annual reductions of 10% in
construction cost and construction time. We also propose that defects in projects
should be reduced by 20% per year (paragraphs 23-26).
• To achieve these targets the industry will need to make radical changes to the processes
through which it delivers its projects. These processes should be explicit and transparent
to the industry and its clients. The industry should create an integrated project process
around the four key elements of product development, project implementation,
partnering the supply chain and production of components. Sustained improvement
should then be delivered through use of techniques for eliminating waste and increasing
value for the customer (chapter 3).
• If the industry is to achieve its full potential, substantial changes in its culture and
structure are also required to support improvement. The industry must provide decent
and safe working conditions and improve management and supervisory skills at
all levels. The industry must design projects for ease of construction making maximum
use of standard components and processes (paragraphs 53-61).
4
• The industry must replace competitive tendering with long term relationships based
on clear measurement of performance and sustained improvements in quality and
efficiency (paragraphs 67- 71).
• The Task Force has looked specifically at housebuilding. We believe that the main
initial opportunities for improvements in housebuilding performance exist in the social
housing sector for the simple reason that most social housing is commissioned by a few
major clients. Corporate clients – housing associations and local authorities – can work
with the housebuilding industry to improve processes and technologies and develop
quality products. We propose that a forum for improving performance in housebuilding
is established (paragraphs 75- 79).
• The Task force has concluded that the major clients of the construction industry must
give leadership by implementing projects which will demonstrate the approach that we
have described. We want other clients, including those from across the public sector, to
join us in sponsoring demonstration projects. We also wish to see the construction industry
join us in these projects and devise its own means of making improved performance
available to all its clients. Our ambition is to make a start with at least £500 million of
demonstration projects (paragraphs 82-83).
• In sum, we propose to initiate a movement for change in the construction industry, for
radical improvement in the process of construction. This movement will be the means
of sustaining improvement and sharing learning (paragraph 84).
• We invite the Deputy Prime Minister to turn his Department's Best Practice Programme
into a knowledge centre for construction which will give the whole industry and all of
its clients access to information and learning from the demonstration projects. There is
a real opportunity for the industry to develop independent and objective assessments of
completed projects and of the performance of companies (paragraph 85).
• The public sector has a vital role to play in leading development of a more sophisticated
and demanding customer base for construction. The Task Force invites the Government
to commit itself to leading public sector bodies towards the goal of becoming best practice
clients seeking improvements in efficiency and quality through the methods that we have
proposed (paragraphs 86-87).
• The members of the Task Force and other major clients will continue their drive for
improved performance, and will focus their efforts on the demonstration projects.
We ask the Government and the industry to join with us in rethinking construction.
5
The Need to Improve
CHAPTER 1
The Need to Improve
1. The Construction Task Force has been set up by the Deputy Prime Minister against a
background of deep concern in the industry and among its clients that the construction
industry is under-achieving, both in terms of meeting its own needs and those of its clients.
2. Construction in the UK is one of the pillars of the domestic economy. The industry in its
widest sense is likely to have an output of some £58 billions in 1998, equivalent to roughly
10% of GDP and employs around 1.4 million people. It is simply too important to be allowed
to stagnate.
3. UK construction at its best is excellent. We applaud the engineering ingenuity and design
flair that are renowned both here and overseas. The industry is also eminently flexible. Its
labour force is willing, adaptable and able to work in the harshest conditions. Its capability
to deliver the most difficult and innovative projects matches that of any other construction
industry in the world.
The Terms of Reference of the Construction Task Force
To advise the Deputy Prime Minister from the clients’ perspective on the opportunities to
improve efficiency and quality of delivery of UK construction, to reinforce the impetus for
change and to make the industry more responsive to customer needs.
The Task Force will:
• quantify the scope for improving construction efficiency and derive relevant quality
and efficiency targets and performance measures which might be adopted by UK
construction;
• examine current practice and the scope for improving it by innovation in products
and processes;
• identify specific actions and good practice which would help achieve more efficient
construction in terms of quality and customer satisfaction, timeliness in delivery and
value for money;
• identify projects to help demonstrate the improvements that can be achieved
through the application of best practice.
The Deputy Prime Minister wishes especially to be advised on improving the quality and
efficiency of housebuilding.
6
The members of the Construction Task Force
Sir John Egan (Chairman), Chief Executive, BAA plc.

Mike Raycraft, Property Services Director, Tesco Stores Ltd.
Ian Gibson, Managing Director, Nissan UK Ltd.
Sir Brian Moffatt, Chief Executive, British Steel plc.
Alan Parker, Managing Director, Whitbread Hotels.
Anthony Mayer, Chief Executive, Housing Corporation.
Sir Nigel Mobbs, Chairman, Slough Estates and Chief Executive, Bovis Homes.
Professor Daniel Jones, Director of the Lean Enterprise Centre, Cardiff Business School.
David Gye, Director, Morgan Stanley & Co Ltd.
David Warburton, GMB Union.
Need to Modernise
4. Nevertheless, the industry recognises that it needs to modernise in order to tackle the severe
problems facing it, not least that:
• it has a low and unreliable rate of profitability. Margins are characteristically very low.
The view of the Task Force is that these are too low for the industry to sustain healthy
development and we wish to see those companies who serve their clients well making
much better returns;
• it invests little in research and development and in capital. In-house R & D has fallen
by 80% since 1981 and capital investment is a third of what it was twenty years ago.
This lack of investment is damaging the industry's ability to keep abreast of innovation
in processes and technology;
• there is a crisis in training. The proportion of trainees in the workforce appears to have
declined by half since the 1970s and there is increasing concern about skill shortages
in the industry. Too few people are being trained to replace the ageing skilled workforce,
and too few are acquiring the technical and managerial skills required to get full value
from new techniques and technologies. Construction also lacks a proper career structure
to develop supervisory and management grades;
• too many clients are undiscriminating and still equate price with cost, selecting designers
and constructors almost exclusively on the basis of tendered price. This tendency is widely
seen as one of the greatest barriers to improvement. The public sector, because of its need
to interpret accountability in a rather narrow sense, is often viewed as a major culprit in
this respect. The industry needs to educate and help its clients to differentiate between
best value and lowest price.
Client Dissatisfaction
5. Under-achievement can also be found in the growing dissatisfaction with construction among both
private and public sector clients. Projects are widely seen as unpredictable in terms of delivery
on time, within budget and to the standards of quality expected. Investment in construction
is seen as expensive, when compared both to other goods and services and to other countries.
In short, construction too often fails to meet the needs of modern businesses that must be
competitive in international markets, and rarely provides best value for clients and taxpayers.
7
The Need to Improve
6. The under-achievement of construction is graphically demonstrated by the City's view of the

industry as a poor investment. The City regards construction as a business that is unpredictable,
competitive only on price not quality, with too few barriers to entry for poor performers. With
few exceptions, investors cannot identify brands among companies to which they can attach
future value. As a result there are few loyal, strategic long-term shareholders in quoted
construction companies.
7. Discussions with City analysts suggest that effective barriers to entry in the construction
industry, together with structural changes that differentiated brands and improved companies’
“quality of earnings” (i.e. stability and predictability of margins), could result in higher share
prices and more strategic shareholders. We believe such a change towards stability of profit
margins would be at least as highly valued by the City as a simple increase in margins.
The Client View
The British Property Federations 1997 survey of major UK clients reveals that:
• more than a third of major clients are dissatisfied with contractors’ performance
in keeping to the quoted price and to time, resolving defects, and delivering a final
product of the required quality;
• more than a third of major clients are dissatisfied with consultants’ performance
in co-ordinating teams, in design and innovation, in providing a speedy and reliable
service and in providing value for money.
A recent survey by the Design Build Foundation shows that:
• clients want greater value from their buildings by achieving a clearer focus on meeting
functional business needs;
• clients’ immediate priorities are to reduce capital costs and improve the quality of
new buildings;
• clients believe that a longer-term, more important issue is reducing running-costs
and improving the standard of existing buildings;
• clients believe that significant value improvement and cost reduction can be gained
by the integration of design and construction.
Fragmentation
8. We recognise that the fragmentation of the UK construction industry inhibits performance
improvement. One of the most striking things about the industry is the number of companies
that exist – there are some 163,000 construction companies listed on the Department of
the Environment, Transport and the Regions’ (DETR) statistical register, most employing
fewer than eight people.
9. We regard this level of fragmentation in construction both as a strength and a weakness:
• on the positive side, it is likely that it has provided flexibility to deal with highly variable
workloads. Economic cycles have affected the industry seriously over past decades and
have meant that it has been forced to concentrate more on survival than on investing
for the future;
• on the negative side, the extensive use of subcontracting has brought contractual relations
to the fore and prevented the continuity of teams that is essential to efficient working.
8
Building on Latham
10. It was the consequences of fragmentation which Sir Michael Latham principally examined in
his landmark report published in 1994. The Task Force recognises that we are building on the
firm foundations which Sir Michaellaid. We welcome the impact that his report has had on
the industry and the developments arising from it, including the establishment of the Construction
Industry Board and the recent legislation on adjudication and fair payment. Together with
the Government's current initiative Combating Cowboy Builders, this will help to reform
the way the industry does business and to counter the strongly ingrained adversarial culture.
11. In consequence, our view of UK construction is that, although it suffers from serious
problems, the outlook is positive if action is taken quickly. Despite low levels of investment,
falling employment and cyclical downturns, the industry's output has maintained a strong
long term upward trend in real terms. Over the last forty years growth in real output has
broadly matched GDP: Furthermore, labour productivity appears to have risen by more than
5% per year in real terms since 1981, faster than the average for the economy as a whole.
Promising Developments
12. We are also greatly encouraged by the wide range of promising developments which have emerged
from the industry, its clients and its Government sponsors over the last few years, including:
• recent initiatives to improve construction performance, such as the Construction Round

Table’s “Agenda for Change”, the Construction Clients’ Forum’s “Pact with the Industry”
and the DETR’s Construction Best Practice Programme;
• improved components, materials and construction methods, including standardisation

and pre-assembly, and new technology such as 3D object-oriented modelling and global
positioning systems;
• tools to tackle fragmentation, such as partnering and framework agreements, which

are becoming increasingly used by the best firms in place of traditional contract-based
procurement and project management;
• increasing interest in tools and techniques for improving efficiency and quality learned
from other industries, including benchmarking, value management, teamworking,
Just-In-Time, concurrent engineering and Total Quality Management.
Partnering
Partnering involves two or more organisations working together to improve performance

through agreeing mutual objectives, devising a way for resolving any disputes and
committing themselves to continuous improvement, measuring progress and sharing
the gains. The Reading Construction Forum’s best practice guides to partnering,
‘Trusting the Team’ and ‘Seven Pillars of Partnering’ demonstrate that where partnering
is used over a series of construction projects 30% savings are common, and that a
50% reduction in cost and an 80% reduction in time are possible in some cases.
Tesco Stores have reduced the capital cost of their stores by 40% since 1991 and by
20% in the last two years, through partnering with a smaller supplier base with whom
they have established long term relationships. Tesco is now aiming for a further 20%
reduction in costs in the next two years and a 50% reduction in project time.
Argent, a major commercial developer, has used partnering arrangements to reduce the
capitol cost of its offices by 33% and total project time in some instances by 50% since
1991. They partner with three contractors and a limited number of specialist sub-contractors,
consultants and designers.
9
Standardisation and Pre-Assembly
Volumetric Ltd designs and manufactures prefabricated units which can be incorporated
in a variety of buildings, including Forte’s Travelodge, speculative housing and housing
association developments, military accommodation, private hospitals and top of the range
self-build houses. Advantages include speed of construction, lower cost, reduced need
for skilled labour and achievement of zero defects.
McDonald’s Restaurants have demonstrated an ability to construct a fully-functioning
restaurant on site in 24 hours, using a very high degree of prefabrication and modularisation.
The design allows expansion or even relocation
Performance Improvement Tools and Techniques
CALIBRE has been developed by BRE as a simple but effective system for mapping
and understanding site processes and measuring and comparing on-site performance.
Using hand-held computer technology feeding back to a lap top computer it provides
real-time feedback to site managers to help them remove barriers to productivity, eliminate
waste and improve value-adding activities
Value management is a structured method of eliminating waste from the brief and from
the design before binding commitments are made. Value management is now used by
up to a quarter of the construction industry to deliver more effective and better quality
buildings, for example through taking unnecessary costs out of designs, and ensuring clearer
understanding of the brief by all project participants and improving teamworking. Value
management can also reduce costs by up to 10%
Benchmarking is a management tool which can help construction firms to understand
how their performance measures up to their competitors’ and drive improvement up to
‘world class’ standards. Taywood Engineering Ltd are using benchmarking in a project
to identify a strategy for achieving zero defects in construction, including the principles
of a ‘zero defects culture’ and a range a possible tools, such as the concept of a ‘stop
button’ in site production, to prevent defects “going down the line”.
Great Scope for Improvement

13. Leading clients working with the best construction companies are successfully combining
many of these developments to achieve significant improvements in the cost, time and quality
of projects. But there is plenty of scope for further improvement at the leading edge of the
industry and for these improvements to be spread across the industry and offered to the vast
majority of occasional and inexperienced clients. The Task Force is strongly of the view that
there is nothing exceptional about what major clients are doing to improve performance in
construction. Anybody can do it, given the time, the commitment and the resources.
Direction from Major Clients

14. In construction the need to improve is clear. Clients need better value from their projects,
and construction companies need reasonable profits to assure their long-term future. Both
points of view increasingly recognise that not only is there plenty of scope to improve, but
they also have a powerful mutual interest in doing so. To achieve the performance improvements
required there is a pressing need to draw all the promising developments in construction
together and give them direction. The Task Force believes that this direction and the impetus
for change must come from major clients. In the next section we, as representatives of major
clients, set out the basis of this direction through our ambition to create a thoroughly modern
10
Our Ambition for UK Construction
CHAPTER 2
Our Ambition for
UK Construction
15. The members of the Task Force were chosen for their expertise as construction clients and
also for their extensive experience of other industries that have improved their performance.
Dramatic changes have occurred in these industries over the last two or three decades driven
largely by the customer and the need simply to survive the competition.
Improvements in Other Industries

16. In both manufacturing and service industries there have been increases in efficiency and
transformations of companies which a decade or more ago nobody would have believed
possible. For example, British grocery chains are now world leaders, the UK steel industry is
a highly competitive international player, and car plants in this country are among the best
internationally in terms of efficiency and productivity. And of course these successes come
against a background of rising world-class standards – defects in the car industry are now
measured in parts per million components rather than per hundred.
The Experience of Other Industries
Car Manufacturing
World-wide benchmarking studies of car and component manufacturing in the early 1990s
revealed a two to one gap in performance and a 100 to one gap in quality between
Japanese and Western car manufacturers. The opening of the Nissan, Toyota and Honda
plants in the UK showed that this level of performance could also be achieved in plants
outside Japan. Western car manufacturers then began crash programmes to implement
“lean production” systems in order to close the gap. To fulfil their aim of 80% local
content within a few years, the Japanese carmakers also began to work closely with
local component suppliers to help them implement lean production.
The scale of the improvements achieved by the best and being sought by the others is
impressive. The time to introduce a new car, from design freeze to launch, is coming
down from 40 to 15 months. the time to weld, paint and assemble a car is coming down
from 40 to 15 hours per car, with similar reductions in effort in component production.
The rate of supplier defects delivered to the assembly pant is coming down from 3%
to 5 parts per million. The time from placing an order on the factory to sale to a customer
is coming down from 120 days to 15 days. As a result of these improvements UK car
production and exports have nearly doubled over the last decade.
The most critical constraint on improvement lay in spreading lean production to smaller
second tier suppliers. The Department of Trade and Industry sponsored initiatives to help
smaller suppliers learn from Japan. In 1995 the leading manufacturers and suppliers
established the “Industry Forum” as the focus for industry-wide improvement activities.
The forum is unique in bringing together experienced engineers from Nissan, Honda,
Toyota, General Motors and Volkswagen to train local engineers in accelerated process
improvement on the shop floor in smaller component suppliers. They are also developing
generic tools for spreading accelerated process improvement throughout the industry.
After initial pump priming from the DTI the Forum will shortly become self-financing.
11
Steel-making
The key drivers for the restructuring of British Steel were the need to respond to shareholders’
and customers’ simultaneous requirements for cost reduction and performance improvement,
and the longer term need to secure the competitive position of steel compared with other
materials such as concrete, plastic or aluminium. A series of complementary initiatives
were introduced to deliver a dramatic and sustained improvement in performance.
Business procedures were revised, processes simplified and improved, and waste eliminated.
A programme of Total Quality Management covering products, processes and employees
throughout the Company was initiated, facilitating moves towards multi-skilling and
teamworking. An essential enabler was and remains a substantial training programme:
employees currently receive, on average, 11.4 training days each, representing a spend of
5% of employment costs. Capital investment was closely linked to customer requirements,
productivity and quality improvements, and removal of bottlenecks.
Partnership arrangements with customers were put in hand to drive joint initiatives to take
out cost and complexity, British Steel has taken steps to become involved at the design
stage of customers’ products, through broadening the Company’s selling organisation
to reach specifiers directly, and enhancing research and development facilities to facilitate
joint working with customers. As a result of these initiatives British Steel has increased
sales and production levels whilst reducing UK manpower from 200,000 to less than
40,000 in two decades. The programme has on ongoing objective of maintaining the
competitive edge.
Grocery Retailing
Leading grocery producers and retailers established the Efficient Consumer Response
(ECR) movement in the USA in 1993 to improve their competitiveness. The aim was to
develop a common framework for jointly managing the grocery supply chain and to
replace the advesarial relationships of the past. It was built around an industry ‘scorecard’
measuring the progress of all parties and a value chain costing methodoloy for identifying
the savings being realised. In the UK ECR is co-ordinated by the Institute for Grocery
Distribution, run jointly by the retailers and producers. Groups of ECR members undertook
to carry out pilot projects together and to share the findings with the rest of the industry.
Theses pilots were successful in demonstrating real savings that could only be achieved
by working together, and led to new partnerships between producers and retailers.
ECR has spread right across the world and the UK industry is a leading player. In the last
15 years UK grocery retailers have made huge progress in streamlining their distribution
systems, shrinking order lead times from two weeks to two days and cutting inventories
from five to 2.5 weeks, at the same time as product ranges and volumes grew eight to ten
fold. ECR has been instrumental in sustaining this rate of improvement across the whole
supply chain and in breaking down adversarial relationships. It has also led to new cross-
industry initiatives on standardisation, shared distribution arrangements and other issues.
Offshore Engineering
In 1992 the offshore oil and gas engineering industry in the North Sea faced a crisis. The
price of oil dropped from $35 a barrel to $12, making exploitation uneconomic. Platform
operators, contractors and suppliers came together to form the Cost Reduction Initiative
for the New Era or CRINE, a co-operative effort to find ways of reducing wasteful activity
in platform construction.
After 12 months of investigation and analysis the CRINE Report was published, recommending:
functional rather than prescriptive specifications; common working practices; non-adversarial
contracts and use of alliancing; reduction in procurement bureaucracy; and a single industry
body for prequalification. These recommendations were put into practice by the industry.
As a result the cost of oil and gas field developments was reduced by 40%.
12
An unexpected result was the emergence of a network of innovative individuals committed

to on-going co-operation for further improvement. By 1997 CRINE had been transformed
into the CRINE Network, a continuous agent for change and a brand-name for cost
reduction and competitiveness in the oil industry. Its vision is “People working together
to make the UK oil and gas industry competitive anywhere in the world by the year 2000”.
CRINE remains a model of “co-operative effort” in the supply chain which has been
emulated and copied in many parts of the world. It has usefully been extended, through
the ACTIVE Engineering Construction Initiative, to the UK’s process plant industries,
with a view to improving efficiency and enhancing competitiveness
Drivers of Change
17. We have looked at what has driven manufacturing and service industry to achieve these radical
changes. We have identified a series of fundamentals to the process which we believe are just
as applicable to construction as to any other business concern. These are:
• committed leadership: this is about management believing in and being totally committed
to driving forward an agenda for improvement and communicating the required cultural
and operational changes throughout the whole of the organisation.
In construction, there is no part of the industry which can escape this requirement:
it affects constructors, suppliers and designers alike. The Task Force has met
many managers of companies in the construction industry over the last few months
and, while many wish to improve company performance, we have yet to see
widespread evidence of the burning commitment to raise quality and efficiency
which we believe is necessary;
• a focus on the customer: in the best companies, the customer drives everything. These
companies provide precisely what the end customer needs, when the customer needs it
and at a price that reflects the products value to the customer. Activities which do not
add value from the customer's viewpoint are classified as waste and eliminated.
In the Task Force's experience, the construction industry tends not to think about
the customer (either the client or the consumer) but more about the next employer
in the contractual chain. Companies do little systematic research on what the
end-user actually wants, nor do they seek to raise customers' aspirations and
educate them to become more discerning. The industry has no objective process
for auditing client satisfaction comparable with the 'ID Power survey' of cars or
the 'Which' report. We think clients, both public sector and private sector; should
be much more demanding of construction;
• integrate the process and the team around the product: the most successful enterprises
do not fragment their operations - they work back from the customer's needs and focus
on the product and the value it delivers to the customer. The process and the production
team are then integrated to deliver value to the customer efficiently and eliminate waste
in all its forms.
The Task Force has looked for this concept in construction and sees the industry
typically dealing with the project process as a series of sequential and largely separate
operations undertaken by individual designers, constructors and suppliers who have
no stake in the long term success of the product and no commitment to it. Changing
this culture is fundamental to increasing efficiency and quality in construction.
13
• a quality driven agenda: Quality means not only zero defects but right first time, delivery
on time and to budget, innovating for the benefit of the client and stripping out waste,
whether it be in design, materials or construction on site. It also means after-sales care
and reduced cost in use. Quality means the total package - exceeding customer expectations
and providing real service.
The industry rightly complains about the difficulty of providing quality when clients
select designers and constructors on the basis of lowest cost and not overall value
for money. We agree. But it must understand what clients mean by quality and
break the vicious circle of poor service and low client expectations by delivering
real quality.
• commitment to people: this means not only decent site conditions, fair wages and
care for the health and safety of the work force. It means a commitment to training and
development of committed and highly capable managers and supervisors. It also means
respect for all participants in the process, involving everyone in sustained improvement
and learning, and a no-blame culture based on mutual interdependence and trust.
In the Task Force"s view much of construction does not yet recognise that its people
are its greatest asset and treat them as such. Too much talent is simply wasted,
particularly through failure to recognise the significant contribution that suppliers
can make to innovation. We understand the difficulties posed by site conditions
and the fragmented structure of the industry" but construction cannot afford not
to get the best from the people who create value for clients and profits for companies.
18. We believe that these fundamentals together provide the model for the dramatic improvements
in performance that UK construction must achieve if it is to succeed in the 21st century.
Among many leading clients and construction companies this model is already being turned
into reality, and is beginning to deliver dramatic improvements in the efficiency and quality
of construction. We want to see this progress accelerated and spread to the rest of the industry
and its clients.
Set targets for Improvement

19. To drive dramatic performance improvement the Task Force believes that the construction
industry should set itself clear measurable objectives, and then give them focus by adopting
quantified targets, milestones and performance indicators. This is evidently not the case at
present. For example, it is not clear whether the construction industry is on target to meet
Sir Michael Latham's aspiration to see a 30% improvement in productivity. In this respect,
we welcome the work which the Construction Industry Board has now commenced on
performance indicators.
20. If construction is to share in the benefits of improved performance the objectives and targets
that it sets must be directly related to client's perceptions of performance. This means measures
of improvement in terms of predictability, cost, time and quality. Clients will then be able to
recognise increased value and reward companies that deliver it. Targets must also be set for
improving the quality and efficiency of construction processes – in terms of safety and labour
productivity for example. In this way corners are not cut and companies and their staff share
in the benefits of success. In our experience this is the only way to make gains last and deliver
continuous improvement.
14
Measure Progress
21. Construction must also put in place a means of measuring progress towards its objectives
and targets. The industry starts with a clean sheet in this respect. It has a great opportunity
to create an industry-wide performance measurement system which will enable clients to
differentiate between the best and the rest, providing a rational basis for selection and to
reward excellence.
22. In addition to objectives and targets, the Task Force would therefore like to see:
• the construction industry produce its own structure of objective performance measures
agreed with clients;
• construction companies prepare comparative performance data and share it with clients
and each other. The experience of other industries shows that this can be done without
compromising legitimate needs for confidentiality;
• a system of independently monitored company 'scorecards', measuring companies' progress

towards objectives and targets, instead of simple benchmarking. The names of the best
performers would be made public and every company would be privately informed of
where it stood in relation to its competitors.
The Scope for Improvement

23. To illustrate the kind of targets which the Task Force wants to see construction adopt we have
set out in the table below our assessment of the minimum scope for improvement in the
performance of UK construction. It is necessarily an impressionistic and partial assessment,
since construction has no accepted performance indicators. Solid data on company and
project performance in terms of efficiency and quality is hard to come by.
24. The scope for improvement that we have identified is underpinned by evidence from leading
clients and construction companies from the UK and the USA. Indeed, we have taken a
conservative view in most cases of what we know is being achieved by leading edge companies.
We expect that the best UK construction companies and clients will meet these minimum
rates of improvement in full and go on to surpass them.
25. Our assessment is also underpinned by what is known about the amount of waste in construction.
Recent studies in the USA, Scandinavia and this country suggest that up to 30% of construction
is rework, labour is used at only 40-60% of potential efficiency, accidents can account for
3-6% of total project costs, and at least 10% of materials are wasted. These are probably
conservative estimates when compared to the amount of waste identified in manufacturing
by best practice firms such as Toyota. Furthermore, an OECD study suggests that UK input
costs are generally a third of those of other developed countries but output costs are similar
or higher. The message is clear - there is plenty of scope for improving efficiency and quality
simply by taking waste out of construction.
26. We have set our measures in terms of annual improvement. We expect construction to make
dramatic initial increases in efficiency and quality, but in our experience greatest value is
obtained through significant sustained improvement rather than one-off advances. We expect
the leading companies in the industry to adopt these measures as targets, or similar ones of
their own devising, to monitor them regularly and to report progress publicly – and that includes
companies in all sections of the industry.
15
The Scope for Sustained Improvement
Indicator Improvement Current performance of leading clients

per year and construction companies
Capital cost Reduce by Leading clients and their supply chains

All costs excluding land 10% have achieved cost reductions of between
and finance. 6 and 14% per ear in the last five years.
Many are now achieving an average of
10% or greater per year.
Construction time Reduce by Leading UK clients and design and build

Time from client approval 10% firms in the USA are currently achieving
to practical completion. reductions in to construction time for offices,
roads, stores and houses of 10-15% per year.
Predictability Increase by Many leading clients have increased

Number of projects 20% predictability by more than 20% annually
completed on time and in recent years, and now regularly achieve
within budget. predictability rates of 95% or greater.
Defects Reduce by There is much evidence to suggest that

Reduction in number of 20% the goal of zero defects is achievable
defects on handover. across construction within five years.
Some UK clients and US construction
firms already regularly achieve zero
defects on handover.
Accidents Reduce by Some leading clients and construction

Reduction in the number 20% companies have recently achieved
of reportable accidents. reductions in reportable accidents of
50-60% in two years or less, with consequent
substantial reductions in project costs.
Productivity Increase by UK construction appears to be already

Increase in value added 10% achieving productivity gains of 5% a year.
per head Some of the best UK and US projects
demonstrate increases equivalent to
10-15% a year.
Turnover and profits Increase by The best construction firms are increasing
Turnover and profits of 10% turnover and profits by 10-20% a year,
construction firms. and are raising their profit margins as
a proportion of turnover well above the
industry average.
16
Performance Improvement in Construction
• Tesco Stores have reduced the capital cost of their stores by 40% in five years.
They are now targeting a further 20% reduction in costs over two years and a 50%
reduction in project time.
• Argent have reduced the capital cost of office construction by 33% and total project
time by 50% since 1991.
• BAA Pavement Team have reduced project time on airport runways and taxiways by
more than 30%, reduced accidents by 50%, and achieved 95% predictability of cost
and time in two years.
• The Whitbread Hotel Company have reduced construction time for its hotels by 40%
since 1995 and costs have also been progressively reduced annually in real terms.
• Raynesway Construction Southern in a year have reduced the costs of maintaining
Hampshire County Council’s roads by 10%, increased turnover by 20& with the
same labour force, and reduced accidents by 60%.
• The Neenan Company in Colorado have used ‘lean construction’ techniques over
two years to reduce the time to produce a schematic design by 80% and project
times and costs by 30%.
• Pacific Contracting of San Fransisco have used ‘lean construction’ to increase
their productivity and turnover as a cladding and roofing subcontractor by 20%
in eighteen months.
• Neil Muller Construction of South Africa have used Total Quality Management
techniques to achieve an 18% increase in output per employee in a year, a 65%
reduction in absenteeism in four years, and a 12% saving on construction time
on a major project.
27. If the industry is not prepared to do this, the we propose that the clients should take the
initiative. We are already aware of the Construction Round Table’s an the Construction
Clients’ Forum’s intentions in this respect and of the British Property Federations customer
survey. We think it is essential that any comparative data takes account of user satisfaction
with the buildings they occupy and with the services of the design and construction team.
Our ambition for UK Construction

28. This then is our ambition for a modern construction industry in the UK: adoption of the
model of dramatic performance improvement that other industries have followed with such
success, in order to deliver the challenging targets for increased efficiency and quality that
we know are achievable. In the next section we offer the industry a practical approach to
doing so, through the concept of the integrated project process.
17
Improving the Project Process
CHAPTER 3
29. Can construction learn from the successes of manufacturing and service industry? The Task
Force believes it can. Our view is similar to that of construction industry representatives on
the Task Force's visit to Nissan UK to see its advanced approach to production, who wrote:
“we see that construction has two choices: ignore all this in the belief that construction
is so unique that there are no lessons to be learned; or seek improvement through
re-engineering construction, learning as much as possible from those who have done
it elsewhere”
30. If we follow the latter approach, what is it that construction has to learn to do differently ?
We believe that at least part of the answer is that the industry has to rethink the process
through which it delivers its projects with the aim of achieving continuous improvement
in its performance and products.
Repeated Processes
31. We have repeatedly heard the claim that construction is different from manufacturing because
every product is unique. We do not agree. Not only are many buildings, such as houses,
essentially repeat products which can be continually improved but, more importantly, the
process of construction is itself repeated in its essentials from project to project. Indeed,
research suggests that up to 80% of inputs into buildings are repeated. Much repair and
maintenance work also uses a repeat process. The parallel is not with building cars on the
production line; it is with designing and planning the production of anew car model.
32. The Task Force has looked at what leading clients and innovative constructors both here and
overseas are doing to rethink the construction process. We have been informed by our own
experience and have tested out ideas with our own construction supply chains. The documentary
evidence is scattered at present but there are a number of pointers which indicate the same
direction. These include, for example BSRIA’s study of the installation of building services in
office buildings and the Genesis project undertaken by BAA with support from BRE. Both studies
confirmed that as much as 40% of the manpower used on construction sites can be wasted.
33. These and other studies all suggest that there are significant inefficiencies in the construction
process and that there is potential for a much more systematised and integrated project process
in which waste in all its forms is significantly reduced and both quality and efficiency improved.
This ties in with our observation that manufacturing has achieved performance improvements
by integrating the process and team around the product.
An Integrated Project Process

34. If we are to extend throughout the construction industry the improvements in performance
that are already being achieved by the best, we must begin by defining the integrated project
process. It is a process that utilises the full construction team, bringing the skills of all the
participants to bear on delivering value to the client. It is a process that is explicit and
transparent, and therefore easily understood by the participants and their clients.
18
35. The rationale behind the development of an integrated process is that the efficiency of
project delivery is presently constrained by the largely separated processes through which
they are generally planned, designed and constructed. These processes reflect the fragmented
structure of the industry and sustain a contractual and confrontational culture.
36. The conventional construction process is generally sequential because it reflects the input
of designers, constructors and key suppliers. This process may well minimise the risk to
constructors by defining precisely, through specifications and contracts, what the next
company in the process will do. Unfortunately, it is less clear that this strategy protects the
clients and it often acts as an effective barrier to using the skills and knowledge of suppliers
and constructors effectively in the design and planning of the projects.
37. Moreover, the conventional processes assume that clients benefit from choosing anew team
of designers, constructors and suppliers competitively for every project they do. We are far
from convinced of this. The repeated selection of new teams in our view inhibits learning,
innovation and the development of skilled and experienced teams. Critically, it has prevented
the industry from developing products and an identity - or brand - that can be understood
by its clients.
Focus on the End Product

38. The Task Force believes that construction can learn from other sectors of the economy in
tackling these problems by focusing the construction process on delivering the needs of the
end-user or consumer through the end product. Most clients for construction are interested
only in the finished product, its cost, whether it is delivered on time, its quality and functionality.
Concentrating on the needs of the consumer leads to a view of construction as a much more
integrated process.
39. Our experience is that the overall process can be subdivided into four complementary and
interlocked elements:
• product development
• project implementation
• partnering the supply chain
• production of components
40. The key premise behind the integrated project process is that teams of designers, constructors
and suppliers work together through a series of projects, continuously developing the product
and the supply chain, eliminating waste in the delivery process, innovating and learning
from experience. Many major and experienced clients are already doing this through their
partnering arrangements and are achieving the levels of performance improvement that we
have targeted earlier in this report. The challenge for the construction industry is to develop
their own integrated teams to deliver the same benefits to occasional and inexperienced
clients. The Task Force believes that this is not only desirable but wholly possible.
19
Product Development
41. Product development is the means of continuously developing a generic construction product
– for example, a house, a road, an office or a repair and maintenance service – to meet and
inform the needs of clients and consumers. It requires a detailed knowledge of clients and
their aspirations, and effective processes for innovating and for learning through objective
measurement of completed projects. The Task Force see this activity as parallelling the sort
of research into the needs of customers undertaken by most other industries.
Product Development
• Listening to the voice of the consumer and understanding their needs and aspirations.
• Developing products that will exceed client expectations.
• Defining the attributes of a construction product and understanding how they are
influenced through specific engineering systems and components.
• Defining projects that deliver the product in specific circumstances and setting clear
targets for the project of delivery teams.
• Assessing completed projects and customer satisfaction systematically and objectively,
and feeding the knowledge gained back into the product development process.
• Innovating with suppliers to improve the product without loss of reliability,
42. Product development requires continuity from a dedicated product team: one with product
design skills, with close links to the supply chain through which the skills of suppliers and
their innovations can be assessed, and with access to relevant market research. Many major
and experienced clients already have organisations dedicated to developing their own construction
products and the construction industry is beginning to develop similar teams in response to
the opportunities presented by the Private Finance Initiative. Again, there is a need to devise
means of making these arrangements available to all clients.
Project Implementation
43. Project implementation is about translating the generic product into a specific project on a
specific site for a specific customer. The implementation team, incorporating all of the key
suppliers, needs to work together to design the engineering systems, select key components
and pre-plan the manufacture, construction and commissioning. The Task Force would like
to see this approach being backed by the use of computer modelling to test the performance
of the end-product for the customer and, especially, to minimise the problems of construction
on site. Our feeling is that good IT is an essential part of improving the efficiency of construction.
44. We see more effective project implementation as being one of the keys which can unlock
greater efficiency on site, arising from, for example, using standardised components, precise
engineering fit and the use of extensive pre-assembly. We also believe this will significantly
improve quality. However, the delivery of such an approach has, in our experience, revealed
a culture gap. Site construction needs to be carried out by a relatively small dedicated team
of multi-skilled operatives who develop their expertise over a series of projects. We consider
such cultural implications further in the next chapter.
20
• Leadership of an integrated team of suppliers, constructors and designers dedicated

to engineering and constructing the project.
• Mapping of processes, measurement of performance and continuous improvement
to improve quality and eliminate waste.
• Development of engineering systems and selection of components to achieve product
performance targets.
• Pre-planning of manufacture, construction and commissioning.
• Assembly of components and sub-assemblies on site and commissioning of the
completed project.
• Training and development of all participants to support improvements in performance.
• Learning from experience and feedback into the project delivery process.
Partnering the Supply Chain

45. The Task Force envisages a very different role for the construction supply chain. In our view,
the supply chain is critical to driving innovation and to sustaining incremental and sustained
improvement in performance. Partnering is, however, far from being an easy option for
constructors and suppliers. There is already some evidence that it is more demanding than
conventional tendering, requiring recognition of interdependence between clients and
constructors, open relationships, effective measurement of performance and an ongoing
commitment to improvement. For example, the Ministry of Defence/DETR “Building down
Barriers” project is supported by the Tavistock Institute whose hob it has been to help the
project participants unlearn the traditional relationships between constructors themselves
and with their clients. An essential aspect of partnering is the opportunity for participants
to share in the rewards of improved performance.
• Acquisition of new suppliers through value-based sourcing.

• Organisation and management of the supply chain to maximise innovation, learning
and efficiency.
• Supplier development and measurement of suppliers’ performance.
• Managing workload to match capacity and to incentivise suppliers to improve
performance.
• Capturing suppliers’ innovations in components and systems.
Production of Components
46. There is no reason why constructions’ approach to component production should be radically
different from that used by today’s leading manufacturers of consumer products. It should
involve the detailed planning, management and sustained improvement of the production
process to eliminate waste and ensure the right components are produced and delivered at
the right time, in the right order and without any defects. The Task Force believes that
construction has a great deal to learn about effective logistics management: the industry
would do well to study the experience of the retail and distribution industries and vehicle
manufacturing in this respect.
21
Production of Components
• Detailed engineering design of components and sub-assemblies.

• Planning, management and continuous improvement of the production process.
• Development of a range of standard components which are used in most projects
• Production of components and sub-assemblies to achieve ‘right first time’ quality.
• Management of the delivery of components and sub-assemblies to site exactly
when needed
• Measurement of the performance of completed components and systems.
• Learning from experience about product performance and durability.
• Innovation in the design of components to improve construction products.
47. Component production also includes the sustained commitment to innovation in the design
of components, and development of a range of standard components which are used in most
projects. By working closely with the product development teams component manufacturers
can push forward the boundaries of client aspirations. The construction industry very often
fails to educate the client about what improvements in products are available and this is an
especially serious omission when dealing with smaller clients who are naturally less familiar
with what is available.
Sustained Improvement
48. Once the integrated project process has been put in place the next step is to maintain
the momentum of the increases in efficiency and quality that it offers. The key to this is to
implement a programme of sustained improvement of the construction process to eliminate
waste and increase the value that it adds to the client. Again the Task Force has turned
to other industries with experience of success in this area for guidance.
49. We have investigated the emerging business philosophy of "lean thinking" which has been
developed first in the car industry and is now spreading through the best manufacturers and
into retailing and other industries. Lean thinking presents a powerful and coherent synthesis
of the most effective techniques for eliminating waste and delivering significant sustained
improvements in efficiency and quality.
50. We are impressed by the dramatic success being achieved by leading companies that are
implementing the principles of "lean thinking" and we believe that the concept holds much
promise for construction as well. Indeed, we have found that lean thinking is already beginning
to be applied with success by some construction companies in the USA. We recommend
that the UK construction industry should also adopt lean thinking as a means of sustaining
performance improvement.
22
What is Lean Thinking?
Lean Production is the generic version of the Toyota Production System, recognised as
the most efficient production system in the world today. Lean Thinking describes the
core principles underlying this system that can also be applied to every other business
activity – from designing new products and working with suppliers to processing orders
from customers.
The starting point is to recognise that only a small fraction of he total time and effort in
any organisation actually adds value for the end customer. By clearly defining value
for a specific product or service from the end customer’s perspective all the non value
activities, often as much as 95% of the total, can be targeted for removal step by step.
Few products or services are provided by one organisation alone, so that waste removal
has to be pursued throughout the whole value stream – the entire set of activities across
all firms involved in jointly delivering the product or service. New relationships are required
to eliminate inter-firm waste and to manage the value stream as a whole.
Instead of managing the workload through successive departments, process are
reorganised so that the product design flows through all the value adding steps
without interruption, using the toolbox of lean techniques to successively remove the
obstacle to flow. Activities across each firm are synchronised by pulling the product
or design from upstream steps just when required in time to meet the demand from
the end customer.
Removing wasted time and effort represents the biggest opportunity for performance
improvement. Creating flow and pull starts with radically reorganising individual process
steps, but the gains become truly significant as all the steps link together. As this happens
more and more layers of waste become visible and the process continues towards the
theoretical end point of perfection, where every asset and every action adds value for the
end customer. Lean Thinking represents a path of sustained performance improvement and
not a one-off programme.
Applying Lean Thinking in Construction
Pacific Contracting of San Fransisco, a specialist cladding and roofing contractor, have
used the principles of lean thinking to increase their annual turnover by 20% in 18 months
with the same member of staff. The key to this success was improvement of the design
and procurement process in order to facilitate construction on site, investing in the front
end of projects to reduce costs and construction times. They identified two major problems
to achieving flow in the whole construction process – inefficient supply of materials
which prevented site operations from flowing smoothly, and poor design information
from the prime contractor which frequently resulted in a large amount of redesign work.
To tackle these problems Pacific Contracting combined more efficient use of technology
with tools for improving planning of construction processes. They use a computerised
3D design system to provide a better, faster method of redesign that leads to better
construction information. Their design system provides a range of benefits, including
isometric drawings of components and interfaces, fit co-ordination, planning of
construction methods, motivation of work crews through visualisation, first run tests
of construction sequences and virtual walk-throughs of the product. They also use a
process planning tool known as Last Planner, developed by Glen Ballard of the Lean
Construction Institute, to improve the flow of work on site through reducing constraints
such as lack of materials or labour.
23
Applying Lean Thinking in Construction
The Neenan Company, a design and build firm, is one of the most successful and fastest
growing construction companies in Colorado. The firm has worked to understand the
principles of lean thinking and look for applications to its business, using ‘Study Action
Teams’ of employees to rethink they way they work. Neenan’s have reduced project times
and costs by up to 30%, through developments such as:
• Improving the flow of work on site by defining units of production and using tools
such as visual control processes;
• Using dedicated design teams working exclusively on one design from beginning
to end and developing a tool known as ‘Schematic Design in a Day’ to dramatically
speed up the design process;
• Innovating in design and assembly, for example through the use of pre-fabricated brick
infill panels manufactured off site and pre-assembled atrium roofs lifted into place;
• Supporting sub-contractors in developing tools for improving processes.
24
CHAPTER 4
Enabling Improvement
51. Substantial changes in the culture and structure of UK construction are required to enable
the improvements in the project process that will deliver our ambition of a modem construction
industry. These include changes in working conditions, skills and training, approaches to
design, use of technology and relationships between companies.
52. The Task Force believes that, to deliver the cultural changes necessary to improve the project
process, we must start by valuing our people. Not only is the quality of the workforce fundamental
to the process of change in construction, but also the way workers are treated. In our view,
the workforce is undervalued, under-resourced and frequently treated as a commodity rather
than the industry's single most important asset.
Decent Working Conditions

53. Some of the changes we are looking for may take time to achieve. Others can be delivered
almost instantly. For example, the facilities which are available to workers on site are typically
appaling. Clients and their customers do not like the poor image of the industry in this respect
any more than does the industry itself. It does not require a big step to provide workers
with uniforms, proper facilities and rest areas. Construction sites themselves should become
advertisements for the industry and the firms working on them.
Improving Conditions on Site
As part of its Building for the Future initiative Tesco Stores has introduced visitor centres,
on-site canteens, changing rooms and showers on its sites. Construction materials are
stored in warehouses on site, reducing losses from theft and damage. Site branding
has been introduced – all Tesco sites have identical blue hoardings and workers on
them wear branded overalls with both Tesco and their employer’s name. The increased
team spirit and commitment engendered by these simple innovations have contributed
to Tesco’s achievement of a 40% reduction in construction costs.
54. The health and safety record of construction is the second worst of any industry. We have
observed that most accidents seem to occur when people are either not properly trained
or working out of process. The Task Force has asked the Health and Safety Executive to
comment on our provisional targets for improvement, published in February. Their advice
was to ask the industry to reflect not only on the purely welfare consequences of a poor
health and safety record but to consider as well its cost in terms of lost work days, potential
prosecutions and, in extreme cases, the enforced closure of construction sites.
25
More and Better Training

55. We have posed the question whether construction has the right skills to improve productivity.
Our view is that there are significant gaps:
• at the top management level, there is a shortage of people with the commitment to being
best in class and with the right balance of technical and leadership skills to manage their
businesses accordingly. The industry needs to create the necessary career structure to
develop more leaders of excellence;
• at the project manager level, we see a need for training in integrating projects and
leading performance improvement, from conception to final delivery. We invite training
organisations, including the professional institutions, to develop the necessary training
programmes;
• the key grade on site is the supervisor. The UK has one of the highest levels of
supervision on site internationally but one of the poorest records of training for
supervisors. We invite the Construction Industry Training Board and other relevant
National Training Organisations to consider this issue as a matter of urgency;
• among designers the high standards of professional competence achieved in their training
and development need to be matched by a more practical understanding of the needs
of clients and of the industry more generally. They need to develop greater understanding
of how they can contribute value in the project process and the supply chain;
• there is not enough multi-skilling. The experience of other industries is that heavily
compartmentalised, specialist operations detract from overall efficiency. Modern building
techniques require fewer specialist craftsmen but more workers able to undertake a range
of functions based around processes rather than trade skills. This is being addressed by
overseas companies but the UK is in danger of being left behind;
• upgrading, retraining and continuous learning are not part of construction's current
vocabulary. There is already frustration amongst component suppliers that their innovations
are blocked because construction workers cannot cope with the new technologies that
they are making available. This has to change.
56. Training and quality are inextricably interlinked. The experience of Task Force members
is unequivocally that quality will not improve and costs will not reduce until the industry
educates its workforce not only in the skills required but in the culture of teamwork. We
invite the employers and the National Training Organisations to work with Government
to put together an agenda for urgent action on this issue.
57. In our view, training will only be given the emphasis it deserves if all major clients, including
the public sector, give preference to constructors who can demonstrate that they use trained
workers. One way of achieving this is for major clients to insist that workers hold valid cards
under the Construction Skills Certification Scheme. We would like to see this valuable
scheme extended and use made of smart card technology to discourage the employment
of workers who do not have the appropriate qualifications.
26
Design for Construction and Use

58. As we have already emphasised, in our experience too much time and effort is spent in construction
on site, trying to make designs work in practice. The Task Force believes that this is indicative
of a fundamental malaise in the industry - the separation of design from the rest of the project
process. Too many buildings perform poorly in terms of flexibility of use, operating and maintenance
costs and sustainability. In our view there has to be a significant re-balancing of the typical
project so that all these issues are given much more prominence in the design and planning
stage before anything happens on site. In other words, design needs to be properly integrated
with construction and performance in use. Time spent in reconnaissance is not wasted.
59. There is a series of practical consequences that flows from this:
• suppliers and subcontractors have to be fully involved in the design team. In

manufacturing industry, the concept of "design for manufacture" is a vital part of
delivering efficiency and quality, and construction needs to develop an equivalent
concept of “design for construction”;
• the experience of completed projects must be fed into the next one. With some
exceptions the industry has little expertise in this area. There are significant gains to
be made from understanding client satisfaction and capturing technical information,
such as the effectiveness of control systems or the durability of components;
• quality must be fundamental to the design process. Defects and snagging need to
be designed out on the computer before work starts on site. ‘Right first time’ means
designing buildings and their components so that they cannot be wrong;
• designers should work in close collaboration with the other participants in the project
process. They must understand more clearly how components are manufactured and
assembled, and how their creative and analytical skills can be used to best effect in the
process as a whole. There is no longer a place for a regime of design fees based on a
percentage of the costs of a project, which offers little incentive to build efficiently;
• design needs to encompass whole life costs, including costs of energy consumption and
maintenance costs. Sustainability is equally important. Increasingly, clients take the view
that construction should be designed and costed as a total package including costs in
use and final decommissioning.
• clients too must accept their responsibilities for effective design. Too often they are
impatient to get their project on site the day after planning consent is obtained. The
industry must help clients to understand the need for resources to be concentrated
up-front on projects if greater efficiency and quality are to be delivered.
Standardisation
60. Standardisation also has an important role to play in improving the design stage of construction.
The average car contains about 3,000 components. A house, by comparison, has about 40,000.
We see a useful way of dealing more efficiently with the complexity of construction is to make
greater use of standardised components. We call on clients and designers to make much
greater use of standardised components and measure the benefits of greater efficiency and
quality that standardisation can deliver.
27
61. There is also much scope for standardising processes. This can provide much greater predictability
about what is performed, by whom, how and when. Standardisation of processes and components
need not result in poor aesthetics or monotonous buildings. We have seen that, both in this
country and abroad, the best architects are entirely capable of designing attractive buildings
that use a high degree of standardisation.
The Scope for Standardisation
The Construction Confederation in its evidence to the Task Force told us there was
scope to standardise many construction products and components. Examples include:
• Manhole covers – local authorities have more than 30 different specifications for
standard manhole covers;
• Doors – hundreds of combinations of size, veneer and ironmongary exist;
• Motorway bridges – many UK bridges are prototypes, whereas they are of standard
construction in France, Germany, and Belgium;
• Toilet pans – there are 150 different types in the UK but only six in the USA;
• Lift cars – although standard products are available, designers almost invariably wish
to customise these.
The Confederation cites the benefits of standardisation as being: reductions in manufacturing
costs; fewer interface and tolerance problems; shorter construction periods; and more
efficient research and development of components.
Technology as a Tool
62. The Task Force does not consider that technology on its own can provide the answer to the
need for greater efficiency and quality in construction. There have been celebrated examples
of new technology being used to reinforce outdated and wasteful processes – and it does not
work. The advice offered to construction by leading manufacturing industries is to approach
change by first sorting out the culture, then defining and improving processes and finally
applying technology as a tool to support these cultural and process improvements.
63. Members of the Task Force have seen the effectiveness of this approach for themselves on
European housing sites that are using innovative forms of building, together with a high degree
of prefabrication, pre-assembly and standardisation. What surprised us was that, when asked
for the source of efficiency savings on site, the constructors and developers tended not to
attribute them to the technology of construction but to pre-planning with suppliers and
component manufacturers to minimise the time actually spent on site.
64. One area in which we know new technology to be a very useful tool is in the design of buildings
and their components, and in the exchange of design information throughout the construction
team. There are enormous benefits to be gained, in terms of eliminating waste and rework
for example, from using modern CAD technology to prototype buildings and by rapidly
exchanging information on design changes. Redesign should take place on computer, not on
the construction site.
28
Better Regulation
65. We accept that a framework of regulatory controls in construction and development is
entirely necessary, and indeed can help to produce efficiency and quality. But, in our view
the interpretation and application of regulations is inconsistent across the country, making
it more difficult to implement a construction project speedily and efficiently. Significant
costs and delays are often incurred in the design and planning of projects by the variability
of enforcement of regulations, and by duplication of processes between agencies.
66. We invite central and local Government to look carefully at ways of achieving better regulation.
In particular, we feel that there is scope for regulatory regimes such as building control to
be more output driven, so that constructors and their clients are able to deliver to performance
standards rather than detailed prescriptions. We are also of the view that making the processes
of the land use planning system more predictable would help improve the efficiency of
construction, particularly housebuilding. We look to Lord Rogers' task force on urban
regeneration to consider this issue.
Long Term Relationships

67. An essential ingredient in the delivery of radical performance improvements in other industries
has been the creation of long term relationships or alliances throughout the supply chain on
the basis of mutual interest. Alliances offer the co-operation and continuity needed to enable
the team to learn and take a stake in improving the product. A team that does not stay
together has no learning capability and no chance of making the incremental improvements
that improve efficiency over the long term. The concept of the alliance is therefore fundamental
to our view of how efficiency and quality in construction can be improved and made available
to all clients, including inexperienced ones.
68. We have already mentioned the need for long term relationships in construction in the previous
section where we discussed partnering the supply chain. Partnering on a series of projects
is a powerful tool increasingly being used in construction to deliver valuable performance
improvements. We are proposing that the industry now goes a stage further and develops
long-term alliances that include all those involved in the whole process of delivering the
product, from identification of client need to fulfilment of that need.
Long Term Relationships
The Whitbread Hotel Company rationalised its supply chain from 30 contractors to 5 and
embarked on long-term partnership arrangements. Working on the basis of mutual interest,
a construction strategy, objectives and improvement targets are set through negotiation
between Whitbread, its partners and the supply chain. whitbread shares its five year
business plan with its partners so that they contribute proactively to the achievement of
Whitbread’s objectives whilst planning their own businesses with greater effectiveness.
Whitbread agrees fixed amounts for contractors’ profits and overheads and shares savings
from performance improvement with its partners. Competition within the supply chain
focuses upon delivering continually improving performance.
69 In this connection, the Task Force wishes to see:
• new criteria for the selection of partners. This is not about lowest price, but ultimately
about best overall value for money. Partnering implies selection on the basis of attitude
to teamworking, ability to innovate and to offer efficient solutions. We think that it offers
a much more satisfying role for most people engaged in construction;
29
• all the players in the team sharing in success in line with the value that they add for
the client. Clients should not take all the benefits: we want to see proper incentive
arrangements to enable cost savings to be shared and all members of the team making
fair and reasonable returns;
• an end to reliance on contracts. Effective partnering does not rest on contracts. Contracts
can add significantly to the cost of a project and often add no value for the client. If the
relationship between a constructor and employer is soundly based and the parties recognise
their mutual interdependence, then formal contract documents should gradually become
obsolete. The construction industry may find this revolutionary. So did the motor industry,
but we have seen non-contractually based relationships between Nissan and its 130
principal suppliers and we know they work;
• the introduction of performance measurement and competition against clear targets

for improvement, in terms of quality, timeliness and cost, as the principal means of
sustaining and bringing discipline to the relationships between clients, project teams and
their suppliers. The evidence we have seen is that these relationships, when conducted
properly, are much more demanding and rewarding than those based on competitive
tendering. There are important issues here, particularly for the pubic sector.
Replacing Contracts with Performance Measurement
Nissan UK and Tallent Engineering Ltd have no formal contract beyond an annual
negotiation of the cost and quality of the rear axles that Tallent produce for Nissan's
cars, and rigorous targets for improving performance. Each morning Tallent receives an
order from Nissan detailing the precise mix of axles required by Nissan and five times a
day Tallent deliver to Nissan's Sunderland plant. If a problem was to occur with quality
Tallent would send engineers to Nissan to fix it on the car production line. If a problem
resulted in a significant loss of production, Nissan would expect to compensate Tallent
for lost business or vice versa, but this has never happened and both sides work hard
to ensure it cannot. Both Nissan and Tallent use similar no-contracts relationships with
the firms delivering their construction projects.
Nissan’s QCDDM supply chain management system is acknowledged to be among the
most effective in the world. It measures all suppliers on Quality, Cost, Delivery, Design
and Management against negotiated continuous improvement targets. For each element
the supplier is marked on a range of product and process items which are aggregated
on a weighted basis to give a performance percentage for that element. Competition is
created across the supply chain by collating the performance information every month
and informing each supplier of its performance in relation to the others.
70. Such relationships inevitably require mutual interdependence, some continuity in workflow
and, if not stability, at least greater predictability. The Task Force recognises that this can be
difficult for the construction industry. It is also potentially difficult for many clients. However,
experience suggests that long term satisfactory partnering arrangements themselves generate
greater continuity in workload, and this may be especially true in a construction industry
in which an increasing premium is being placed by clients on quality.
30
Reduced Reliance on Tendering

71. The most immediately accessible savings from alliances and partnering come from a reduced
requirement for tendering. Whilst this may go against the grain, especially for the public sector,
it is vital that away is found to modify processes so that tendering is reduced. Clients may
well ask how they can be satisfied that they are getting value for money. The answer lies in
comparison between suppliers and rigorous measurement of their performance. With quantitative
performance targets and open book accounting, together with demanding arrangements for
selecting partners, the Task Force believes that value for money can be adequately demonstrated
and properly audited. We invite the Treasury, with DETR, to consider the appropriate
mechanisms further and give guidance to public bodies.
72. The radical changes required in the culture of the construction industry are likely to mean
that there will be fewer but bigger winners. The Task Force's view is that those companies
with the right culture deserve to thrive. Cut-throat price competition and inadequate profitability
benefit no-one. For the sake of the long-term health of the industry and its clients we wish
to see a culture of radical and sustained improvement in performance enabled in UK construction.
31
Improving House Building
CHAPTER 5
Improving House building
73. As part of its terms of reference the Task Force was asked to look particularly at improving
the efficiency and quality of housing construction. Whilst the Task Force considers that the
scope for improving performance is as great in housing development as in other forms of
construction, we believe that there should be specific initiatives to encourage advances in
this sector. In our view housebuilding is affected by some significant factors that distinguish
it from other sectors of the construction industry:
• housing development operates within a regulatory environment, affecting the level and
location of activity. There are some in-built inefficiencies within the process which arise
from the present requirements of the planning system;
• land prices have a major impact on out turn costs, representing up to 50% of total costs
in some areas. These are a function of demand rather than of efficiency;
• in the private housing market demand by a 'one-off' disaggregated client base is dictated
as much by price and location as by quality of the housing product or the efficiency of
its performance;
• in the social housing sector, demand by corporate clients {housing associations and
local authorities) is affected by uncertainties and inefficiencies resulting from periodic
changes in policy direction and unpredictable levels of investment.
Promising Developments
74. There are promising developments in both private and public sector housing in the UK,
although most innovatory housebuilding is being undertaken overseas. Good quality public
housing, indistinguishable from the housing for sale that it is increasingly located alongside,
is becoming commonplace. In the social housing sector the main corporate clients are
increasingly investigating innovative approaches to housebuilding which offer significant
improvements in the speed and cost of construction while retaining high quality.
75. In the social housing sector housing associations are the dominant providers of new housing.
In 1998/99 they expect to start schemes {both new build and rehabilitation) worth around
£2 billion for approximately 30,000 homes. 60 housing associations account for some 50%
of these schemes. The sector, including both housing associations and local authorities, also
faces a growing demand for repairs and maintenance.
76. The Task Force believes that the main initial opportunities for improvements in housebuilding
performance exist in the social housing sector for the simple reason that most social housing
is commissioned by a few major clients. However, we would expect improved practice in
developing social housing to affect expectations and activity in the wider housing market.
Consequently we see much scope for cross-fertilisation of innovation between the public
and private sectors.
32
Developments in Housebuilding
Westbury Homes are actively pursuing an innovation approach to housing. They are
developing new customer-focused approaches to develop products which will enable
them to expand into new markets. They are trailing new component systems and
production processes in demonstration projects and they are developing partnering
arrangements with their suppliers. Both Wimpey Homes and Westbury have brought
in board-level expertise from manufacturing industry in order to implement new
supply-chain management techniques.
Over the last three years Bovis Homes, like many volume housebuilders, has standardised
its product by using standard plan forms built from bulk-purchased parts. The standard
house types are regularly re-engineered by the product development team in response
to feedback from the sales and marketing team and customers. Research into what the
customer wants is continually carried out using questionnaires, and value for different
types of customer is defined in terms of price, locality, number of rooms, appearance,
and quality of construction. A full customer care service is also provided.
Housing associations such as Southern Housing Group, Peabody, Hyde Housing Association
and Guiness Trust are implementing lessons from abroad to improve the procurement
of low-cost, high quality adaptable housing. For example, the Dutch Open Building
approach is being demonstrated, offering tenants a wider range of choices of internal
fit-out in both new-build and refurbishment schemes. Modular industrialised housing
systems such as those used in Japan by Sekisui and Toyota are being trailed to reduce
the cost and time of construction and provide tight quality control. This can deliver
housing with zero defects on-site, removing the need for expensive and time-consuming
‘snagging’ and ‘making good’.
Leading suppliers in the social housing market, such as Willmott Dixon, have initiated their
own innovation strategies aimed at delivering greatly improved products and services
to housing associations. Component manufacturers like Redland and Hepworth are also
investing heavily in R&D to develop better component systems to speed up construction.
Potential for Change

77. In support of the Task Force's work programme and as part of a wider programme of meetings
to test our thinking, the Housing Corporation organised seminars to which representatives
of some of the major housing associations and housing construction companies were invited.
They offered a useful opportunity to assess the potential for radical change. These events highlighted:
• an enthusiasm amongst both housing associations, as clients, and contractors for the
pursuit of greater efficiency and quality;
• the vital influence of clients over the performance of the housebuilding industry. Well
informed, demanding clients who know what they want and how much they are prepared
to pay for it, and are able to specify their requirements clearly, are an essential pre-requisite
to the achievement of a modern, efficient, world-class housebuilding industry;
• the belief that sustained improvement in the industry can only be achieved if rigorous
targets are set and performance measured on a consistent basis;
• the fact that to achieve step improvements in innovation, standardisation of components

and cost efficiency, more can be achieved by co-operation between clients, constructors
and suppliers than through competition.
33
Improving Housebuilding
A Housing Forum
78. The conclusion of these seminars was that a forum of major developing housing associations
and the major housebuilding and construction firms could act as the catalyst for change.
The Task Force proposes the setting up of such a forum to take forward the agenda. We
would see the main objectives of this body to be to bring together those clients, contractors
and suppliers committed to performance improvement to:
• agree targets for improvement, performance indicators, and arrangements for data
collection, analysis and dissemination;
• establish principles for commissioning and evaluating innovative demonstration projects

and disseminating good practice;
• simplify procurement processes, streamline supply chains and standardise component linkages;
• encourage long term partnering arrangements between clients and providers to secure
consistency, continuity, innovation and value for money.
Government Support
79. Although it would be for the members of the forum to agree a way forward, pro-active s
support and encouragement from Government will also be essential. The Task Force sees
this as taking three forms:
• pump priming contributions to support a secretariat for the forum. We feel that DETR
and the Housing Corporation should partly support the secretariat costs of the forum,
alongside membership fees from client and construction companies;
• capital funding for demonstration projects. The government should establish within the
Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme an allocation for demonstration
projects. We suggest £10 million. This, when matched with private finance will support
a programme of innovative development totalling some £20 million per annum;
• prioritising those investment projects offering improved value for money. In the longer
term if the forum is successful, it should result in a range of lower cost, more innovative,
better value homes. These should routinely receive high priority in the allocation of
future public investment, thereby reinforcing the impetus for continuous improvement.
80. Housebuilders and their clients need to share experience of innovation. However, the key
ingredient for success in achieving significant improvements in the quality and efficiency of
housebuilding will be the commitment of those involved. In this housebuilding shares the
same ground as the rest of UK construction.
34
CHAPTER 6
The Way Forward
81. The Task Force believes that the way forward to achieving the ambition of a modern
construction industry lies in commitment. We are calling for:
• commitment from major clients to fulfil their responsibility to lead the implementation
of our agenda for dramatically improving the efficiency and quality of construction;
• commitment from the construction industry to work with major clients to deliver the
significant performance improvements that are possible, and offer these to the occasional
and inexperienced clients; and
• commitment from Government to create and sustain the environment that is needed
to enable dramatic improvements in construction performance, and encourage the public
sector to become best practice clients.
Demonstration Projects
82. The major clients represented on the Task Force have agreed to take the lead and demonstrate
their own commitment to improving performance by undertaking demonstration projects to
develop and illustrate the ideas that we have set out. However, we do not want this to be an
exclusive exercise: we invite other major private and public sector clients of the construction
industry, together with the constructors, designers and suppliers that work with them, to
offer similar projects on which together we can test and develop innovation. Our ambition
is to make a start with at least £500 million worth of projects.
83. We propose that this core of projects and the housebuilding forum should become the basis
of a movement for change and innovation in construction, established to pool experience
among major clients and construction companies, develop ideas and drive improvement in
quality and efficiency. We see such a movement as the principal way in which the construction
industry can gain benefit from the lead being given by the major clients and grasp the
initiative itself.
A Movement for Change

84. We envisage the movement for change as a group of people, possibly supported by a secretariat,
who are committed to improving the delivery of their projects and the performance of their
companies by applying the ideas that the Task Force has set out. The movement would be a
network through which members could collaborate with each other in developing construction
techniques and skills and exchanging ideas for increasing efficiency and quality. The movement
should be open to all who are able to demonstrate commitment to:
• carrying out demonstration projects to advance the knowledge and practice of construction
best practice;
• focusing on the needs of their clients in everything that they do;
35
The Way Forward
• developing within their own organisations and throughout their supply chains a culture of
trust and respect that encourages the contributions of all participants in the project process;
• training all their staff fully and providing them with conditions of employment and facilities
that enable them to give of their best;
• measuring performance against other member's projects and project processes, and sharing
the results with the wider industry;
• extending the benefits of improved performance to all their clients.
Knowledge Centre
86. There is an urgent need for the construction industry to develop a knowledge centre through
which the whole industry and all of its clients can access to knowledge about good practices,
innovations and the performance of companies and projects; in particular the knowledge
gained from demonstration projects. It is important that the knowledge centre is objective,
impartial and efficient. The DETR is already developing a Construction Best Practice Programme
and we invite the Department to use this to create a national knowledge centre for construction.
Public Sector Clients

87. The public sector is the largest client of the construction industry. The Task Force recommends
that the Government commits itself to leading public sector bodies towards becoming best
practice clients. We believe that this process must begin with substantial improvements in
the way that the public sector procures construction. In our view this can be achieved while
still meeting the need for public accountability.
88. The Government has already demonstrated through Public-Private Partnerships and the PFI
its ability to make radical and successful changes in its procurement policies. By defining
precisely what is wanted from facilities and allowing the construction industry to respond in
innovative ways, Government Departments and Agencies have begun to tap a rich seam of
ingenuity which previously had been stifled by the traditional processes of prescriptive design
and tendering. We wish to see this approach become the norm throughout the public sector.
Occasional Clients
89. This report is largely presented from the point of view of clients who are knowledgeable
about the construction process. That is appropriate, since it is these clients who can give
leadership to improvement in construction. We are conscious, however, that much new
construction and repair and maintenance work is done for occasional and inexperienced
clients, many of whom commission major projects. Such clients are often unfamiliar with
the construction process and unable to provide the environment in which the industry can
meet their needs efficiently. This is of great concern to the Task Force, since we wish to see
significant performance improvements across the whole industry.
Branded Products
The Task Force believes that the construction industry must grasp the opportunity for
improvement that is being offered by major clients, and take responsibility for delivering
these improvements to all of its customers. The industry must create supply chains for
one-off clients and a single-point of contact on projects. It must develop products and
brands which exceed customers' expectations and give customers confidence in the
reliability and integrity of industry.
36
90. The construction industry must also introduce independent and objective assessments of
performance, comparable with the Which report or the JO Power survey, that can be used
by its customers to understand the industry's products and choose between them. We recognise
the scale of this challenge and that it will take many years to achieve. We see no other practical
strategy that the industry can adopt to escape from the debilitating cycle of competitive
tendering, conflict, low margins and dissatisfied clients.
91. We have included few specific recommendations in our report, though we have frequently
suggested a way forward. This approach is deliberate; what the Task Force is looking for is
a change of style, culture and process, not just a series of mechanistic activities. We look to
clients, the industry and Government to put in place the necessary plan of detailed actions
to deliver change. The Task Force's objective will have been achieved if the spirit of change
becomes genuinely embedded in this deeply conservative industry. The members of the
Task Force stand ready to help with the vital process of implementing change.
Summary
92. To summarise, the Task Force wishes to emphasise that we are not inviting UK construction
to look at what it does already and do it better: we are asking the industry and Government
to join with major clients to do it entirely differently. What we are proposing is a radical
change in the way we build. We wish to see, within five years, the construction industry
deliver its products to its customers in the same way as the best consumer-lead manufacturing
and service industries. To achieve the dramatic increases in efficiency and quality that are
both possible and necessary we must all rethink construction.
Department of Trade and Industry

1 Victoria Street
London
SW1H 0ET
All enquiries relating to the copyright in the work should be addressed to,
HMSO, The Licencing Division, St Clements House,
2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
© Crown Copyright 1998 URN 03/951

37
Rethinking Construction 2002 10/6/02 3:09 PM Page 1
Rethinking Construction: 2002

Achievements • Next steps • Getting involved
clients, industry and government working together to improve UK construction

A to Z
OF PARTICIPATING ORGANISATIONS
Rethinking Construction: 2002
Contents
Introduction from the chair 2
2002 – a milestone 3
How can you get involved? 5
Working together 6
Across the UK 9
Good for business 10
The 12 KPIs demonstrated 12
Who’s who in Rethinking Construction? 16
Making contact 19
Published by Rethinking Construction Ltd
108-110 Judd Street, London WC1H 9PX
June 2002
1
A to Z
a
ABA Property & Construction Introduction from the chair

ABB Steward
It is quite incredible to see how much progress we have already made in
Abbey Civil Engineering
implementing the recommendations for radical change set out in Sir
Abbey Holford Rowe Architects
John Egan’s “Rethinking Construction” report. The scale and results of
Acanthus, Lawrence & Wrightson
Accord
our current work programmes are truly impressive.
Accord Jarvis At the core of this programme are some 400

ACIS Group Demonstration Projects valued at £5.6bn, involving
ACL Structures
sustained participation by more than a thousand
ACO Technologies
individuals representing client and supply side
Acoustic Design Technology
organisations of all sizes. Innovations and best practices
Actaris
are regularly being shared through our 10 Regional
Acton Housing Association
Cluster Groups. In some clusters Rethinking
Adams Kara Taylor
Ainsworth Spark Associates Construction Centres are now evolving to bring together
Airedale Glass and Glazing networks of local organisations and interest groups that
Airways Housing Society are also working in support of the Rethinking
Aldwyck Housing Association Construction agenda.
Alfed McAlpine Special Projects
At a practical level we have provided the tools to support performance
Alfred McAlpine Civil Engineering
measurement, benchmarking and targeted continuous improvement,
Allen Pyke Associates
and focused industry attention on the critical areas of sustainability and
Allford Hall Monaghan & Morris
Architects Respect for People. We have regularly published the Key Performance
Allott & Lomax Indicator results that have consistently made the business case for
Altonwood applying Rethinking Construction in practice, and organised some of the
AMC Partnersip best supported conferences and events on significant developments
AMEC Civil Engineering such as off-site manufacturing, the housing sector and knowledge
AMEC M&E Services
management.
AMEC Project Investments
AMEC Services We would not be succeeding without the tremendous support and
Amey Property Services commitment from our sponsoring Departments, the Housing
Amicus Group (Swale Housing Corporation, the Members of our Boards of Management, working
Association)
groups and industry supporters, and the efforts of our implementation
Anchor Housing Trust
Team. But most of all our success comes from the work of the people
Anchor Trust
and companies on the Demonstation Projects.
Anderson Bell Christie
Andrew Porter Our Industry is vast and fragmented. We have made excellent progress
Andrew Sherlock & Partners to embed the lessons of Rethinking Construction but I am acutely aware
Andritz that there is so much more to do. This brochure explains what we are
Anglia Housing Association already doing and most importantly explains how you too can get
Anglian Water Engineering
involved. I urge you all to consider – for good business reasons – the
Anglian Water Services
ways in which you can get involved.
Angus Council
Anthony Hunt Assoc
Approved Design Consultancy
Alan Crane
Aragon Housing Association
Arcadia Aluminium Chair, Rethinking Construction Ltd.
Arcadia Group
Archer Boxer Partners
Architectural Association
Architon Group Practice
Arena Housing Association
Argent Development Consortium
Argent Estates
Artex-Blue Hawk
Arup
Arup Acoustics
ASH Consulting Group
Association of Consultant Architects
2
A to Z
2002 – a milestone Association of Consultant Engineers
This snapshot of Rethinking Construction in 2002 tells you: Autronica

Avebury International
– What we have achieved, Avillon
– What we are doing over the next two years, and Axa Power
b
AYH Partnership
– How you and your organisation can join the challenge.
What is Rethinking Construction?

B.E.E.
Rethinking Construction was initiated by the report of the Construction
BAA
Task Force chaired by Sir John Egan in 1998.
BAA/AMEC (The Pavement Team)
The principles are simple: Babcock Water Eng.
Babtie Group
– Client leadership,
Bachy Solentache
– Integrated teams throughout the delivery chain, and BAe Systems
– Respect for people. Bailey Partnership

Balfour Beatty Construction
The objectives are to achieve radical improvements in the design, Balfour Beatty Major Projects
quality, customer satisfaction and sustainability of UK construction and Balfour Kilpatrick
to be able to recruit and retain a skilled workforce at all levels by Balfour Maunsell
improving its employment practices and health and safety performance. Ballast Wiltshier
Barber, Casanouas and Ruffles
The task force proposed seven targets for improvement, which underpin
Barclays Bank
Rethinking Construction:
Bardon Contracting
– Reduced capital cost Barnes Construction
Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council
– Reduced construction time
Barrie Tankel Project Management
– Better predictability Bartram’s Elec
– Fewer defects Barwick Construction

Bathsystem SA
– Fewer accidents
Battle McCarthy
– Increased productivity Beacon Housing Association
Beale & Cole
– Increased turnover and profit.
Beaver Housing Society
Beazer Group
How are we doing it? Bechtel Morrison JV
Since the publication of the report, the Rethinking
Bechtel Water Technology
Construction agenda has been taken forward through Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing
a dynamic partnership between government, clients Association
and industry. This has been given a further boost by Bellway
the creation in 2001 of the Strategic Forum for Benfield Construction

Benard Ede/A. Grant Associates
Construction that brings together all the key industry
Bennetts Associates
representatives in pursuit of improvement.
Benson
At the heart of the Rethinking Construction initiative is Bentalls
the Demonstration Projects Programme. This provides Berkeley Festival Waterfront
the opportunity for leading edge organisations to Bertram Sheppard
promote projects that demonstrate innovation and Best Practice Club
change which can be measured and evaluated. These Bevan Ashford Solicitors
BG Transco
are either site-based projects or organisational change
Bickerdike Allan Partners
projects.
Bidwells
To date there are more than 400 of these projects in Bielski Associates
the programme, which taken together outperform the Billingham Campus
average of the UK industry against the key indicators. Billington Structures
Bingham Cotterell
Binnie Black and Veatch
Birchdale Glass
3
A to Z
Because of the progress we are making, the Department of Trade and
Birmingham City Council
Industry gave the Rethinking Construction initiative continuing financial
Birse Construction
support for a further two years from April 2002. It is also backed through
Birse Plant Hire
the direct engagement of hundreds of companies and industry
Bison Concrete Products
Bison Structures organisations, government departments including the Treasury and the
BIW Technologies Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as well as
Biwater Industries the Housing Corporation.
Biwater Treatment
Each day, more and more organisations are getting involved with
Black Country Housing & Community
Services Group Rethinking Construction as the impact of our work gathers momentum.
Blackfriars Investments Enlightened clients are seeking to work with people who are committed
Blackpool Borough Council
practitioners of this agenda. At the same time the government is
Blackwall Products
requiring the principles of Rethinking Construction to guide clients’
Blair Rains
procurement practices in both central and local government.
Bleak Hill School
Blyth & Blyth
BNFL Engineering
Our four key strategic objectives
Boothe King Partnership 1. Proving and selling the business case for change – Through effective
Boots The Chemist monitoring and evaluation of Demonstration Projects and
Bovis Lend Lease Organisations, and the collection of KPIs, to deliver clear evidence to
Boxall Sayer the industry that continuous business improvement is achieved by
BP Chemicals following the principles and targets of Rethinking Construction. To
BP Oil place particular emphasis on clients, integrated supply teams
Brain Warwicker Partnership and respect for people issues.
Braintree District Council
BRC
2. Engage clients in driving change – To encourage clients to promote
BRE Rethinking Construction though involvement in demonstrations and
Brian Canavan Assoc. commitment to the Clients’ Charter.
Bridon International
3. Involve all aspects of the industry – To ensure that every sector of the
Brighton & Hove City Council
industry is represented by active demonstration of the Rethinking
Bristol City Council
Construction principles.
British Aerospace Systems
British Cement Association 4. Create a self-sustaining framework for change – To ensure that the
British Gypsum industry takes responsibility for developing and maintaining
British Nuclear Fuels continuous improvement, nationally and regionally.
British Waterways
Britspace
All this is underpinned by the programme of dissemination, support and
Britspace Yorkon Joint Venture advice provided by the Construction Best Practice Programme.
Broadland Housing Association
Bromford Carinthia Housing What is left to be done?
Association
The key areas still to be addressed by Rethinking Construction are:
Broomleigh Housing Association
Bruce Oliver – Continue to prove the business case through demonstrations,
Brunswick Millennium with a growing emphasis on organisation change projects.
BSRIA
– Identify gaps in the business case that need to be filled.
BT
Buckinghamshire County Council – Identify gaps in industry involvement, taking the message to
Bucknall Austin SMEs and encouraging their wider engagement.
BuildEurope Group
– Build a strong national support network across all the English regions,
Build on line
Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
Building Design Partnership
Building Information Warehouse
Building Management
Building Research Establishment
Building Services
Bullen Consultants
Burnley Wilson Fish
Buro Four Project Services
Buro Happold
4
A to Z
c
How can you get involved? Bute Housing Association
Byrne Brothers
Would you like to work with us or find out more? We would very much
welcome your involvement.
You can do this by: C. McDonnell

C.H. Construction
– Nominating a Demonstation Project
CA Blackwell
– Becoming a member or sponsor CA Cornish
Cadarn Housing Group
– Joining a working group that would benefit from your expertise
Cala-Morrison
– Supporting your local Construction Best Practice Club Caldmore Area Housing Association
Caledonian Water
– Participating in Rethinking Construction events that are
Callcott Anderson Design Consultants
run across the UK.
Camargue
Because of the varied nature of the industry and its products, there are a Campbell Reith Hill
Cambridge City Council
number of streams of activity within the Rethinking Construction
Cambridge Van Leyden
initiative. These are:
Cambridgeshire County Council
The Movement for Innovation (M 4I) – which focuses on the general Camelot Distribution
construction industry, Cameron Taylor Bedford
Camtwix Engineering
The Housing Forum – which concentrates on the public and private
CAP Aluminium
housing sector,
Cappagh Public Works
The Local Government Task Force – which is promoting the Capper Pipe Services
Rethinking Construction agenda within local authorities as Cardon Gent
major clients, CARES

Carillion Building
The Respect for People Steering Group – which is currently trialling a Carillion Construction
series of toolkits to help improve recruitment, retention and health Carillion Housing
and safety, and Carillion Infrastructure & International
Carlisle City Council
The Construction Best Practice Programme – which is the main
Carr-Gomm Society
dissemination arm for Rethinking Construction.
Carter Refrigeration
We are also building an extensive support network in the regions, as Castle Vale Housing Action Trust
well as in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Catalyst
Catchment
Contact details for all these groups are shown on page 19.
Cavill Fabrications
CCR
CEGELEC
Cegelec Projects
Central & Cecil Housing Trust
Centre for Alternative Technology
CES
Chandler KBS
Chapman Taylor Partners Architects
Charlton Triangle Homes
Chartered Institute of Building
Charterhouse
Cheserfield BC
Cheshire County Council
Chesterfield Borough Council
Chesterton International
Chetwood Associates
Chiltern Hundreds Housing Association
Chris Blandford Associates
Christchurch Borough Council
Christchurch Junior School
Christopher Smith Associates
5
A to Z
CIMCO Working together

Circle 33 Housing Trust
Following a decision to streamline the Rethinking Construction initiative,
CIRIA
so that all the related parts work together under this brand, progress is
CIRUS
now being made towards completing this process.
CIT
CITB A single company, Rethinking Construction Ltd, acts as the main point of
CITEX co-ordination and liaison between the various streams. The chairs of the
City and County of Swansea Housing Forum, M4I, the Local Government Construction Task Force and
City Engineering Services
the director of the Construction Best Practice Programme serve on the
City of Bradford Drainage
Design Department Board. The DTI attend as observers.
City of Stoke-on-trent The company also acts as the main vehicle for the executive support of
Civil & Industrial Products
the initiative, and receiver of sponsorship, subscriptions and funding.
Cladspec
The Construction Best Practice Programme is funded through a separate
Clarke Bond Partnership
DTI contract with BRE.
Client Architect
CMC
Coastline Windows
Cochrane McGregor
Colledge Trundle & Hall
Collingwood Housing Association
Collis Heating
Commercial Management Consultants
Community Housing Association
Community Self-Build Scotland
Comsite Projects
Concepts Architects
CONNECT 2020
Consafe
Consarc Design Architects
Conspec Contractors
CONSTRUCT
Construction for Business
Contano
Cook & Butler partnership
Movement for Innovation www.m4i.org.uk
Coral Construction
The Movement for Innovation (M4I) takes the lead in
Cornwall County Council
promoting Rethinking Construction among the non-housing
Corus
sectors of the UK Construction Industry and related trade
Corus Construction Centre
Costain
and professional organisations. The Board of Management
Costain Civil Engineering is responsible for the performance and learning outputs
Countryside in Partnership from the M I Demonstration Projects, and has led the development of the
4
Countryside Strategic Projects Key Performance Indicators and the Environmental Performance
Coventry City Council Indicators. The Movement is partly financed by Supporters and
Crabtree Members as well as the DTI.
Craig White Design
M4I is developing the regional network for Rethinking Construction,
Crerar & Partners
through its Demonstration Projects cluster programme. These clusters
Crest Nicholson Properties
Crossbrook Furniture are now expanding to embrace the Housing Forum Demonstration
Crown House Engineering Projects.
Cruden Homes (Scotland)
M4I is promoting Rethinking Construction badged events, following the
CSA Consulting Engineers
success of its Off-site Fabrication conference last year, and a Knowledge
CTSG
Management event in April 2002. It is also jointly supporting a series of
Cundall Johnston & Partners
seminars on Lean Construction.
Currie and Brown
Curtins Consulting Engineers The M 4I Board members are listed on page 16.
CV Buchan
CWS Engineering
6 Cyril Sweett & Partners

A to Z
Housing Forum www.thehousingforum.org.uk
d
D Campbell & Company
The Housing Forum was set up to bring together everyone in
D H Morris Group
the house building chain in a movement for change and D&R Scaffold (London)
innovation in dealing with new construction and renovation Dave Dickinson & Associates
of the existing stock. The Housing Forum embraces leading David Cartwright
edge suppliers, house builders, social landlords, local David Crewe Associates
authorities, designers, contractors, consultants, housing trade bodies and David Stroud Associates
professional institutions, who are seeking continuous improvement in David Wilson Homes
quality, efficiency, sustainability and value for money. Davis Langdon Consultancy
Davis, Langdon & Everest
The Housing Forum set up the National Customer Satisfaction Survey that DCT Civil Engineering
will become the regular measure of progress for speculative house builders, Deakin Walton Consulting Engineers
and established a Benchmarking Club for its members to develop housing Deane & Amos Shopfitting
sector specific key performance indicators. It has developed Housing Sector Dearle & Henderson Consulting
Key Performance Indicators for refurbishment, repair and maintenance Defence Estates
works, and it has published reports on key themes. Delva Patman
Dene Mechanical
The Forum is partly financed by Core and Open Members, and by the
Denis Wilson Partnership
Housing Corporation and the DTI.
Denley King Partnership
Housing Forum Board members are listed on page 17. Denne Group
Dennis Lister & Assoc
Derwent Housing Association
Local Government Task Force www.lgtf.org.uk
Design Council
The LGTF was established in March 2000 to encourage and
Design Selectric
assist local authorities to adopt the principles of Rethinking
DesignHaus
Construction. As one of the biggest spending clients in the
Deva
country on construction, maintenance and repair works, it is Devon & Cornwall Housing Association
vital that councils achieve the improvements and savings that Devon Community Housing Society
Rethinking Construction can bring. By focusing on the whole-life costs of a Devon County Council
project, rather than cheapest initial tender costs, local authorities can ensure Devonport Management
that they meet their Best Value obligations, and deliver high quality services Diocese of Portsmouth
to the people they serve. The LGTF publishes advice and guidance to local Dixon Contractors
authority practitioners, designed to maximise their efficiency and Dixon Jones Architects
effectiveness. By avoiding waste, duplication and dispute, they ensure Donal Hayes & Sons
Donald Smith, Seymour & Rooley
that they are best serving the needs of their community; giving them
Doncaster Borough Council
more for less.
Dorset County Council
Working closely with the Movement for Innovation and the Housing Forum, Dorset Engineering Consultancy (DEC)
the LGTF focuses attention on their Demonstration Projects, and the very Downey & Warren
real improvements that these bring to the construction process. Dr. Amato
Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
The LGTF has close links with other organisations that represent local
Dula UK
authorities, such as the Local Government Association, Improvement and
Dundee City Council
Development Agency (IdeA), Chartered Institute of Public Finance Dundee Plant Company
Accountants (CIPFA), and the Department of Transport, Local Government Durham County Council
and the Regions (DTLR). Durkan
DVS
e
LGTF Board members are listed on page 18.
DWr CYMRU/Welsh Water
Respect for People www.rethinkingconstruction.org.uk

Respect for People (RfP) is fundamental to achieving world class
E Poole
performance in construction. It is a crosscutting theme throughout the E Thomas Construction
strands of Rethinking Construction. Following the launch of the report E.C. Harris
A Commitment to People “Our Biggest Asset” by the then Construction Ealing Family Housing Association
Minister Nick Raynsford in November 2000, there has been extensive Earth Tech/Farrans (JV)
trialling of a series of toolkits and Key Performance Indicators. East Dorset Housing Association
East Midlands Housing Association
East Riding of Yorkshire County Council
7
A to Z
The work now involves over 100 companies across the UK representing
East Sussex County Council
every sector of the industry, and covers seven themes:
East Thames Housing Group
ECS
– Diversity in the workplace,
Eden Housing Association – On-site working environment,
Edmond Shipway – Health,
Edmont Joinery
– Safety,
Education Workshop Services
– Working conditions off-site,
Edward Cullinan Architects
Edward Roscoe Assoc. – Career development & lifelong learning, and
Edwards Project Management – Behaviour.
EH Smith
The first ever set of industry Respect for People KPIs have been produced
EI WHS
and were launched in May 2002. They are available from the Construction
EIC Contract Services
Best Practice Programme.
EIC South West
Eidetic RfP toolkits are available from Rethinking Construction. Aimed at line
Eildon Housing Association management they are unique within the construction environment and
EJ Badekabiner can be used to underpin progress towards the Investors in People
Elgar Housing Association
standard or European Foundation for Quality Management Business
Ellesmere Port & Neston
Borough Council Excellence approaches. The revised set – developed in response to the
Emcor Drake & Skull trialling – will be published in the autumn.
Engineering Construction Industry
The Respect for People Steering Group is listed on page 17.
Association
Engineering Solutions
English Architectural Glazing Construction Best Practice Programme
English Churches Housing Group www.cbpp.org.uk
English Partnerships The Construction Best Practice Programme (CBPP) is an integral
Enviromental Services, Oxfordshire part of the Rethinking Construction initiative. A recent survey
County Council
showed that more than 90% of users acknowledged that the
Environment Agency
programme has brought financial benefits to their company.
Environment Agency Wales
Envirowise The main drive has been to improve the business management of
EPR Design construction through the delivery of services to the sector and the
EPS Maintenance dissemination of best practice information. The CBPP plays a specific role
EPSRC
in continuous business improvement, providing opportunities for
Equity Bank
individuals, business teams, entire companies and supply teams to
Essex County Council
engage in best practice. More than this, the CBPP is about raising
Essex Electrical
awareness, gaining commitment and facilitating the sharing of knowledge.
ESU Services
Europump Services Its 1500 publications include case studies, profiles, guides, and more than
Evesham and Pershore Housing 150 director’s briefings and information on the learning by doing
Association
workshops. Users will benefit from the recent establishment of a team of
Eveson Environmental
40 best practice advisers.
ExCal
EXOR Corporation More than 250,000 user sessions recorded on the CBPP Website show that
Express Reinforcements the industry has adopted the Programme as a key method for learning.
Exterior Construction Management
CBPP also aims to support companies in the construction sector make
f
better use of information technology. IT Construction Best Practice brings
F B Gilmers together expertise and guidance on the effective use of IT throughout the
F W Cook construction industry. Companies that register with ITCBP receive
F W Marsh Electrical guidance material, much of it free of charge, including case studies,
Fairclough Homes guides, reports and other material, as well as updates on events and
Fairhursts industry news. www.itcbp.org.uk
Faithful & Gould
Family Housing Association
The Programme is funded by the DTI.
Family Housing Association (Wales) Contacts for the Construction Best Practice Programme are shown
Farrans (Construction)
on pages 19 and 20.
Faucets
8
A to Z
Across the UK Faulkner Brown
The day to day management of the Movement for Innovation and the Housing fch Housing & Care
Feilden Clegg Architects
Forum Demonstration Projects is conducted locally through the Regional
Fenwick Elliot
Clusters. Regional Co-ordinators (listed on page 19) develop the Regional
Ferguson McIlveen
Clusters and facilitate the demonstrations.
Fernwave
The Clusters reflect the boundaries of the Regional Development Agencies and FES Water Technology
the devolved Government in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. More Fibbens Fox Associates
precise alignment with the RDA boundaries will be introduced by the end of the Fife Belcher Grimsey and Partners
year. Each Demonstration Project has been allocated to one of the Regional Fillcrete
Clusters – normally based on the construction site location. FISEC

Fitch
How the Clusters work Fitzpatrick

Flagship Housing Group
Each Regional Cluster is managed by its own management group, recruited
Floorscape Contracts
from the representatives of the Demonstration Projects and other leading local
Flowline Civil Engineering
enthusiasts. Senior industry representatives from the Movement for Innovation
Flynn Willoughby
and the Housing Forum support them.
FM Modern Design
A Cluster, evolved from the M4I startup, is a forum for those committed to Focus Housing Group
Rethinking Construction to meet regularly and to exchange ideas in a non- Foggo Associates
commercial, cross industry environment. They encourage local debate about Forge-Llewellyn Co
the detail of project innovations and best practices. They promote the practical Forticrete
outputs of the Rethinking Construction Programme to a wide spread of regional Fosseway Housing Association
Foster & Partners
and local interest groups including clients, suppliers, industry organisations,
Frank Haslam Milan
universities and others. The central Rethinking Construction organisation relies
g
Franklin & Andrews
on the Clusters for feedback on regional and local issues and needs.
Fulcrum Consulting
The Clusters are establishing links with regional business, industry and client
organisations that share the Rethinking Construction agenda, or have a vested
G H Marshall
interest in the value for money and quality of the industry’s output. The Clusters
G Rolph & Sons
are engaging with the Regional Development Agencies, key Local Authorities,
G&S Roofing
regional groups of trade and professional organisations, and local Construction
Gaffney, Cline & Associates
Best Practice Clubs (see page 20). Retirement Fund
Gallaher
Towards a National Network Galliford
Our strategy includes an integrated, UK wide network of mutually Gallions Housing Association
supportive organisations working to maintain the energy and Galmalco
enthusiasm for Rethinking Construction in the long term. Gardiner & Theobald
Gary A Powell & Associates
Two meetings of Rethinking Construction organisations in the regions
Gateshead MBC
have taken place; the first at Manchester in December last year and Gavin Jones Landscape
the second at Cardiff in March, each with more than 50 delegates Gazeley Properties
taking part. These meetings confirm the tremendous support for a GBM Build
National Network of regional organisations that will facilitate a wider gcp Chartered Architects
take up of Rethinking Construction, and disseminate its benefits further. Gensler Int.
Geoffrey Osborne
In Northern Ireland and Wales local networking has developed to such an
Geoffrey Reid Associates
extent that formal Regional Rethinking Construction Centres have been
George & Harding Construction
established. These Centres bring together the key local representative interests George Trew Dunn
working in support of Rethinking Construction, under a single management Gerald Tobias Associates
structure. In Northern Ireland the local Board of Management has overall Getjar
responsibility for the operation of the Regional Cluster. It is hoped that similar Gibb
structures will emerge in other regions. Gifford & Partners
Gilbert and Stamper
Lesley Chalmers is your contact for more information on our National Network.
Glamox Electric
Tel: 0207 256 2100, or Email: Lesley.chalmers@btinternet.com.
Glamox International
Glass Block Design & Build
GlaxoSmithKline
9
A to Z
Gleeds Management Services Good for business

Gleeson City Living
This year we have measured the performance of 99 M4I and 53 Housing
Gleeson Homes
Forum Demonstration Projects. Team members collected the data and
Glencroft Civil Engineering
(Manchester) worked with the projects to ensure consistent interpretation and
Gloucestershire County Council application of the KPI measures. The graph below compares the
Gloucestershire Housing Association Demonstration Projects with relevant industry sectors in 2001.
GMW Partnership
Housing Forum Demonstration Projects have again out performed the
Gold Consulting
industry averages for most of the KPIs, in their second year of
Goodson Associates
Gordon Durham & Co monitoring. The Housing Forum shows particular strength in reduced
Gordon Harris Partnership defects, predictability and productivity.
Gosport Borough Council
M4I Demonstration Projects have also out performed the industry
Graham Mather Associates
averages for all the KPIs, in their third year of monitoring. M4I is
Graham Wood
particularly strong in reduced defects, predictability and safety.
Grangefield School
200
Grant Westfield Housing 2000 benchmark
Granta Housing Society 150
Granville Steel 100
Green Family Homes

50
Green Globe 21
0
Greenwich Healthcare Trust 4
All new housing 2001 Housing Forum 2001
M I 2001 All construction 2001
Grendon Building Services 200
Non-housing 2000 benchmark
Grosvenor Housing Association 150
Grundfos Pumps
100
GTMS Scotland
50
Guardian Properties
h
Gusto Construction 0
nt on nt on ct
s ty ty ty ty
ili e
ty
ili n lit
y ity st e
ie ti t ie ti fe fe ili st ili n bi tiv Co Ti
m
Cl fac uc Cl fac ice Sa ab o ab tio ab im ab tio
t is od t is rv De i ct n c i ct ruc i ct n t i ct ruc f ita d uc
sa -pr sa -se ed sig ed st st redesig ed st e Pro Pr
o
H & H Celcon Pr de Pr con co P d Pr con tim
- - - -
H&H Celcon The big picture results provide an irrefutable business case for
H&J Martin
Habinteg Housing Association
Clients are happier – On average Demonstration Projects are showing an
HACAS Asset
Hackney Building Maintenance
11% increase of client satisfaction over the industry.
Haden Young Quality is increasing – An average of 30% more projects are reporting
Hadfield Cokwll & Davidson few or no defects.
Halcrow Management Sciences
It’s a safer place to work – Demonstration Projects are consistently
Halcrow UK
shown to be safer sites. Current figures show them to be 25% safer than
Halcrow Waterman
Halifax
the industry at large.
Hall & Kay Fire Engineering Keeping promises – 15% more Demonstration Projects are finishing on
Hammerson UK Properties or ahead of programme and budget than in the rest of the industry.
Hampshire County Council
More Productive Workforce – Our Projects are showing that the average
Hancock Ward
Hanover Housing Association
value added per employee is £10,000 more than the industry figure.
Hanson Aggregates Quicker Projects – the Demonstration Project process is showing that on
Hanson Concrete Products average they are completing schemes 10% quicker than 1 year ago.
Harbour and General Works
Harper Mackay
How have we done it?
Hart Builders (Edinburgh)
The Demonstration Projects are achieving these results by performance
Hart Housing Association
measurement and benchmarking, long term partnering, integrating
Hartley & Kovats
supply chains, sharing risks and rewards, establishing the culture and
Harvest Housing Group
providing incentives for the elimination of waste in all its forms, and
Harvey & Co
Hastoe Housing Association improving working conditions for employees. That’s Rethinking
Hathaway Roofing Construction!
Havelock Housing Association
10 HBG (Netherlands)
4
A to Z
Housing Forum 2001 M I 2001
HBG Construction Southern
All new housing 2001 All construction 2001
HBG GA Construction
KPI Measure Housing Other Heathrow Airport
4
Construction (M I) Hemsley Associates
Client satisfaction – % scoring 8/10 or better 80% 85% Hepworth Building Products
product 69% 73% Hertfordshire County Council
Hewden Crane Hire
Client satisfaction – % scoring 8/10 or better 67% 80% Hexagon Housing Association
service 58% 65% Heywood Williams
HG Construction
Defects % scoring 8/10 or better 91% 86% HGB Construction
53% 58% HGB Design
HGP Architects
Safety Mean accident incidence 1003 495 Higgins Group
rate per 100k empl. 993 990 Hightown Praetorian Housing
Association
Predictability – % on target or better 67% 81% Highway Surfacing
design cost 60% 63% Highways Agency
Hiilti (GB)
Predictability – % on target or better 54% 71% Hill Partnerships
construction cost 46% 50% Hills Electrical
Hinkins & Frewin
Predictability – % on target or better 72% 81% Hoare Lea & Partners
design time 41% 46% Hochtief/Griffiths jv
Holden & Lee
Predictability – % on target or better 48% 70%
Home Housing Group
construction time 62% 61%
Honeywell Control Systems
Horizon Housing Group
Profitability Median profit before 3% 5.8%
Hotchkiss Ductwork
interest and tax 6% 5.6%
Hotels & Catering Intl. Assoc.
Howdens Joinery
Productivity Mean turnover / £42k £34k
HQ Executive Offices (UK)
employee £28k £28k
Hull City Council
Hurley Palmer Flatt
Construction cost Change compared with +8% -2%
Hurley Palmer Partnership
one year ago +3% +2%
Hurley Robertson Associates
Hutter, Jennings & Titchmarsh
Construction time Change compared with -12% -8%
HY Arnold
one year ago +11% +4%
Hyde Housing Association
Hyder Consulting
Notes on KPIs where Housing Forum projects underperformed against
Hydrax
industry averages: Hy-ten Reinforcement Co
I
Safety – Of the projects reporting on safety, the two reportable accidents
(neither serious) had a disproportionate effect on this statistic.
I & J Munn
Predictability of construction time and profitability – A number of Icon Structures
projects reported difficulty with supply of timber frame components, Impact Housing Association
impacting noticeably on construction time and profitability scores. Imperial College of Science,
Technology & Medicine
Cost – Many housing projects are trialling energy and resource Industrial Dwellings Society
conservation measures and have included the cost of research and Integra (Brighton)
development. Some projects are also reporting high initial costs of Interior
partnering initiatives. Interserve
Interstat (UK)
Institution of Civil Engineers
IPM
Irwell Valley Housing Association
Isherwood & Boyd
Isis Accord
11
A to Z
The 12 KPIs demonstrated
Isle of Wight Housing Association
Bryce Road Phase 2A, Dudley – Housing Forum
C L I E N T S AT I S FAC T I O N – P RO D U C T
Islington County Council
J
ITT Direct The race is on to design houses that demand fewer non-renewable resources.
The Green Futures team is monitoring and comparing emerging green
technologies and consulting residents to see how realistic it is to adopt the more
J Sainsbury promising ideas. Finding consultants, contractors and suppliers ready to develop
J U Bowen (Construction) and trial new solutions is half the battle. Making it work within Housing
Jackson Building Corporation budgets is the other.
Jackson Civil Engineering
Jackson Coles Partnership
The Black Country Housing and Community
James Burrell Builders Merchants Services Group, awarded the ‘product’ top
James Butcher Housing Association marks for packaging innovations – such as
James Killelea & Co solar heating, insulation, airtight construction,
James Scott managed ventilation, and sun tubes – that
Jarvis promote sustainable, modern living.
Jarvis Construction (UK) Combined heat and power, ground source
Jeld Wen (UK) heat pumping, water and waste management
Jestico & Whiles
systems are on trial.
Jewson
JMP Consultants
John Carlisle Partnerships Measured term contracts, Northern Ireland – M 4I
C L I E N T S AT I S FAC T I O N – S E RV I C E
John Doyle Construction Construction Service Northern Ireland manages maintenance and minor works
John Gibbs Partnership for numerous government departments and agencies, under measured term
John Grooms Housing Association contracts. Measuring the scope of work for payment is relatively straight
John Laing
forward, but measuring customer satisfaction was almost impossible because of
John Martin Construction
the large number of orders and the remoteness from end users. Then they were
John Mowlem Construction
introduced to Referenceline, another M4I Demonstration Project.
John Youngs
Jones Environmental (Ireland) Customers are asked to complete a
Joywheels simple score card on the value, quality,
JPS Environmental Services service and response. Referenceline
Jubb & Partners
k
analyses the data and prepares a monthly
JWA Architects
customer satisfaction report on each
contract. Customer satisfaction scores are
impressive overall and the feedback is a
K&N Welding
practical tool for working with contractors
Karl Blacton
who need to improve their service.
Kelly Taylor & Associates
Kelsey Housing Association
Kelsey Roofing Industries
Kendall Kingscott Partnership
Waterloo Air Management, Maidstone – M 4I
In the mid 90s, Waterloo Air Management (WAM) had a serious financial
Kensington Housing Trust
problem. Like so many other construction supply businesses, they were always
Kent County Constabulary
C O N S T RU C T I O N T I M E
running hard just to stand still. The Rethinking Construction report convinced the
Kent County Council
Kent Police Authority board that partnering provided the answer to the most difficult business
Kent Structural and Marine question of all – how to become truly customer focused.
Kerr Duncan McAllister
A critical step in their transformation was to cut lead-time from typically 6-8
Kestner DJM Pollution Control
weeks to 1-2 weeks. This has a knock-on effect in the contractor's programme.
Kestral Tech Services
Long-term partnering deals with 10 100% WAM achieves
Kier Build
key M&E contractors have led to about 95%
Kier Construction
WAM increasing market share in against targets
%on time
King Alfred’s College of Higher

Weeks
Education the core products from 15 to 25%

Kingsbridge Community College over four years. WAM has broken
Kingston Hospital NHS Trust its loss making habit and left years Lead-time
fell by 75%
Kingston upon Hull City Council of red numbers behind.
1997 1998 1999
Kirk McClure Morton
Knauf UK
12 Kone Lifts
A to Z
KPMG Management Consulting

North Tyneside schools programme – M 4I
l
KSB
A continuing better value project by North Tyneside Council is proving itself with
Kwikform UK
excellent results and savings, winning The Unexpected Special Award in Vision
C O N S T RU C T I O N C O S T
100 – BT’s selection of the UK’s 100 most visionary companies. The challenge,
arising from their Asset Management Strategy, is a four-year, £80m programme LA Associates
of renewal and refurbishment of schools. L. B. Camden Housing Renewals
Lacey Hickie & Caley
Abandoning the traditional cost-driven, tender-led formula, they chose three
Lafarge Plasterboard
main building contractors on quality criteria alone. These contractors formed a
Lafarge Redland Aggregates
partnership with the council, creating ‘a unique pool of experience’. The partners
Laing Management
went on to solve the problem of how to get the best value from the supply
Laing Technology Group
chain, identifying five substantial work packages with high cost sensitivity – Lancashire County Council
roofing, mechanical services, electrical services, floor finishes and external Laser Acoustic Ceiling
windows and doors. Leaderflush Shapland
Leeds Federated Housing Association
By offering long-term work and harnessing the trade contractor’s design
Leeds Metropolitan University
expertise, North Tyneside is saving up to 50% on sensitive trade packages. They
Leonard Stace QS
are well on the way to cutting the overall construction cost by 15% during the
Leslie Clark
programme.
Lesterose Builders
Lewelyn-Davis
William Morris Court, Oxford – Housing Forum Lichfield District Council

P R E D I C TA B I L I T Y – D E S I G N C O S T
Lifschutz Davidson
The first steel-framed project by Oxford Citizens Housing Association has
Lightfoot Windows
produced real programme improvements and reduced defects, while reinforcing
Lincolnshire County Council
the association’s successful partnering approach with Oxford City Council and
Lindman
contractor Willmott Dixon. The primary partnership agreement was between Link Financial Services
Oxford City Council, Oxford Citizens and Liverpool City Council
Willmott Dixon. Liverpool Housing Action Trust
Liverpool Housing Trust
A wider, more informal partnership drew in
Livingston Eyre Associates
other key players, including the designers
Lloyd Morris Electrical
MEPK. Each partner appointed a ‘Tzar’ to
LMK Joint Venture
expedite the decision making process and
Logan Fenamec
ensure their unified commitment to the project.
London & Quadrant Bexley
The results are some excellent KPI scores, Housing Association
including keeping the design cost well within London & Quadrant Housing Trust
budget, a performance within the top 10% of London Borough of Barking &
Dagenham
housing projects.
London Borough of Barnet
London Borough of Bromley
PREDICTABILITY – CONSTRUCTION COST
London Borough of Hackney

Home Challenge, South West – Housing Forum London Borough of Lewisham
Western Challenge Housing Association’s new Home Challenge Partnering
London Borough of Merton
Agreement has proved a hit with contractors. Aimed at house refurbishment
London Borough of Newham
contracts, the agreement includes measured KPIs, ring-fenced overheads and London Underground
profit and a shared savings formula not normally found in minor works. Look Ahead Housing and Care
Lorne Stewart
The main criteria are completion to programme and budget. Historical figures
Loughborough University
showed that although the benchmark projects had cost (on average) about 5%
Lovell Construction
less than budgeted, some
m
Lovell Partnerships
22% went over budget. Home Challenge Site Minor Luntri UK
The Demonstation Project Partnering Commencement works
Agreement Form Lytag, Ash Resources
performed much better. After contract
KPIs Survey and life
the first year, Home Challenge
Schedule of Rates costing
was delivering 11% savings M J Gleeson
Framework agreement Project-specific data
and only 4 out of 31 of projects MacConvilles
Home Challenge Partnering Agreement
had exceeded budget. Mace
Mach-Aire
13
A to Z
Christ Church Court, London – M 4I
P R E D I C TA B I L I T Y – D E S I G N T I M E
Maclaren Roughton
Malling Precast Christ Church Court was the first phase of the redevelopment of Paternoster
Manchester City Council Square adjacent to St Paul’s Cathedral for developer Stanhope. John Doyle
Mandix Construction was responsible for the complex substructure and associated
Mansell groundworks, with construction manager Bovis Lend Lease.
Marks and Spencer
There were a lot of small technical innovations, some in consultation with the
Marley Building Materials (Thermalite)
Marshall Tufflex British Cement Association, but the main reason the project succeeded was the
Marshalls proactive behaviour of the integrated project team.
Mason Richards Partnership
It was a congested site demanding difficult, bespoke earthwork support and
Mason Solicitors
concrete installation. John Doyle Construction modelled the working procedure
Master Plan Design Ass.
using a 3D graphics package run with Microsoft Excel. This enabled the project
Matrex Design & Build (Terrapin)
team to understand the process and procedure of the works and to execute them
Maunsell
safely and without undue delay. The project’s KPIs, including design time, were
May Gurney (Construction)
Maybourne and Russell
exemplary.
McAdam Design
PREDICTABILITY – CONSTRUCTION TIME
McBains Cooper
McCann & Partners
Broomleigh HA Maintenance, Bromley –
McCann Homes Housing Forum
McCartney Fire Protection
Repair and maintenance work has
McDonald’s Restaurants
traditionally been done according to
McGill Electrical
an agreed schedule of rates. The
Mcleod & Aitken
system promotes overspending
McNicholas Construction
because it encourages contractors to
MCS Control Systems
MDG Design Safety
look for extras and discourages them
Mede Mill Construction from thinking about economy.

MEICA Processes A partnering agreement with Geoffrey
MEPK Architects
Osborne has saved Broomleigh
Meridian Hospital Company
Housing Association 10% of its total
Metropolitan Housing Association
maintenance costs and boosted rental revenues. The partners have pushed the
Metropolitan Housing Trust
construction time predictability up by 10 points to 96%. Giving the contractor
Michael Bradbrook Consultants
control of the work schedule has been a key reason for their success.
Michael Dyson Associates
Michael Edwards & Associates
Michael Evans and Associates
Mike Thomas
Argo, Wear and Tees – Housing Forum
Project Argo is one of the early strategic
Microsoft Research
Middlesbrough Council
partnerships of its type in the Housing Forum
The Client – our tenants
Midsummer Housing Association demonstration programme. There were initially six
Millenium Minerals new-build schemes valued at £3m for 72 dwellings
Miller Bourne Partnership when the four-year initiative was launched in mid
Miller Construction 1999. The team runs each scheme from initial
DEFECTS
Mitchell & Hewitt feasibility, through Housing Corporation finance Team Team Team Team Team
Mite Engineering Services (Plymouth) bidding, design, construction, and commissioning, 1 2 3 4 5
Mitie Engineering all with open book accounting.
Mitie McCartney Fire Protection
MJ Gleeson Group Home Housing Group managers are delighted with
MLM Consulting Engineers the success of their team – contractor Mansell,
agent the NAP Partnership and designer P+HS
Maintenance “ARGO” Best
Moat Housing Group ■
Tenant
Service & Practice
Modern Design Group Architects – in virtually eliminating defects. Argo feedback for administration
Modern Engineering schemes are rated 100% defects free, compared product Group Safety
improvement ■
Modular Wiring Systems Europe with nearly 60% of Home’s non-Argo projects that Training
Montgomery Watson Research

project KPI
suffer defects at handover.
Moores Furniture Group
■ argo maintenance
Development & reporting
Morgan Horne
Morrison Construction
14 Morrison Plant
A to Z
One in a million – M 4I Morrison/Amec JV
In the public perception, there is probably no more safety aware industry than Mott MacDonald
aviation. Before the Airport Construction Training Alliance (ACTA) existed, the Mouchel Consulting
accident frequency rate in BAA construction was half the average for UK Mouchel North Yorkshire
construction. Yet it was some seven times worse than the petrochemical industry Mountjoy
where there is evidence of an AFR below 0.1 reportable accidents per 100,000 Mowlem Midlands/John Mowlem & Co
hours (One in a Million). Matching this achievement looked like a mission MPM Adams
n
MPM Capita
impossible!
SAFETY
MTech Services
ACTA is a joint initiative
Industry average
between BAA and framework
suppliers. The toolkit was N G Bailey & Co
developed specifically for National Housing Federation
airport construction, in National Westminster Bank
consultation with the Natwest Group Property

BAA Target
Neath Port Talbot County
stakeholders – BAA, suppliers
Borough Council
and construction workers. The
Needlemans
focus is now on attitude and
Nene Housing Society
behaviour changes needed to Network Housing Association
reach their goal. New Downland Housing Association
Newcastle City Council, City Design
Newlon Housing Group
Manufacturing: the business case for M&E – M 4I NHBC
BAA and MEPC, ever demanding yet enlightened clients, asked Crown House
Nicholas Burwell Architect
Engineering to do what is considered impossible by many in the construction Nicholas Hare Architects
industry today. They wanted better M&E services, faster and cheaper, over a five- Non Such High School for Girls
year framework (BAA) and over six projects in Chineham Business Park (MEPC). Norfolk County Council
P RO F I TA B I L I T Y
Crown House delivered, AND they made more money in doing it! North London Waste Authority
North of Scotland Water Authority
Starting with their own manufacturing centre, sited adjacent to a supplier park,
North Tyneside Council
they already had a productivity
North West Water
advantage over more site-
Northcroft
based operations. Their tactics Northern Counties Housing Association
include analysing value to Northern Ireland Housing Executive
reduce waste in the entire Northumberland County Council
supply chain (this is never Norwest Holst
ending) and synchronising Notting Hill Housing Trust
o
production with installation. Nottingham City Council
Cross-functional teams are Nottingham City Building Works
drawn from all members of the

supply chain.
Oakfern Housing
Oakfern Housing Association
Great Leighs Bypass, Essex – M I 4
Oakwood Groundworks
Essex County Council is rising to the challenge of constructing highway Office of Government Commerce
P RO D U C T I V I T Y
schemes in a non-adversarial manner. Scheme finance was conditional upon a Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council
One North East
tight programme so traditional procurement was not the answer. The Council
Optima Community Association
partnered with Alfred McAlpine under an NEC Option C Target Cost, design and
Orbit Housing Association
p
build contract.
O’Rourke Civil Engineering
The team monitored their success by measuring National and site specific KPIs. Oscar Faber
The financial incentive was to share cost savings. Value Management reduced Oxfordshire CC
construction costs and the lean construction management team looked critically at
how waste could be eliminated from the processes. Integrating the team of client,
P A Grant (Electrical)
contractor and consultants boosted productivity by cutting duplication of roles.
P. Wilson & Co.
Panudda Foers
15
A to Z
Parchment Housing Group Who’s who in Rethinking

Parker Torrington
Parkman Construction?
Parsons Brinckerhoff
Pascall & Watson RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION
Patterson Candy Alan Crane, chair
Paul Owen Associates
Peabody Trust Board Members
Pearce Group Architects
Tim Byles, chief executive, Norfolk County Council
Pell Frischman Water
Pennine Housing 2000 Andrew Wolstenholme, group construction
Penny Anderson Associates director, BAA
Penoyre & Prasad Architects
Prof David Gann, innovation director,
Percy Johnson Marshall & Partners
SPRU (Sussex UNI)
Percy Thomas Partnership
Perth & Kinross Council Brian Moore, director, Construction Best Practice
Perthshire Housing Association Programme
Peter Brett Associates
Hugh Try, deputy chairman, Galliford Try
Peter Richards Group
PfP Developments Bob White, chairman and chief executive, Mace
Philip Pank Partnership
Philip Quantril
Observer
Phoenix Interiors
Elizabeth Whatmore, head of Construction Sector
Pioneer RMC
Unit, DTI
PJ Brown Civil Engineering
PJ Carey Contractors
Planned Maintenance Engineering
Pochin Concrete Pumping THE MOVEMENT FOR INNOVATION
Pole Associates
Bob White, chief executive of Mace, has taken over as chair
Porter Moreland
from Alan Crane
Portico Housing Association
Portsmouth City Council
Posford Duvivier
Board Members
Rab Bennetts, director, Bennetts Associates
Premier Structures
Presentation Housing Association David Adamson, director, Estate Management, Cambridge University
Preslands Consulting Engineers
Ron Edmondson, chairman, Waterloo Air Management
Prestoplan Purpose Built
Pringle Brandon Martin Davis, vice chairman, Emcor Drake & Scull
q
PRP Architects
PTP Landscapes
David Fison, chief executive, Skanska UK
Purac Graham Hillier, director of construction, Corus
Tony Ingle-Finch, director rail, JacobGibb

Quantum Partners Sheila Hoile, director of Training Strategy, CITB
r
Mark Howard, director, Atkins Faithful & Gould
R Davis & Company Tim Matthews, chief executive, Highways Agency
R W Gregory & Partners
R&H Decorators Stef Stefanou, chairman, John Doyle
Raglan Housing Association
Andrew Wolstenholme, group construction director, BAA
Railtrack
Railway Housing Association & Andrew Wylie, managing director, Taylor Woodrow
Benefit Fund
Ken Millbanks, vice president, Six Continents
Ramrod Welding Products
Raven Properties
Ravensbury Primary School
Raynesway Construction Southern
RCT Property Consultancy
16 Reading Construction Forum

A to Z
THE HOUSING FORUM Ready Mixed Concrete Bureau
Redland Housing Association
Hugh Try, deputy chair of Galliford Try, has taken over as chair from
Redrow
Sir Michael Pickard
Referenceline
Reid Associates
Board Members Reinforced Concrete Council
Jeffrey Adams, managing director, United House RF Hotels
Robert Ashmead, director general, House Builders Federation Rhondda Cynon Taff County
Borough Council
Tom Clay, director of regeneration & new initiatives, Rhys Owen Partnership
Arena Housing Association RIBA

Richard Hodkinson Consultancy
Stewart Davenport, managing director, Lovell
Richard Keat Assoc.
Simon Dow, chief executive, Guinness Trust Richard Kjackson Partnership

Richard Less Steel Decking
Chris Durkin, chief operating officer, Willmott Dixon Housing
Ridgehill Housing Association
Prof David Gann, innovation director, SPRU (Sussex Uni) Ringway Highway Services
Riverside Housing Association
Barry Munday, chairman, PRP Architects RKL-ARUP
Mike Stansfield, chief executive, David Wilson Homes RLT Assoc.

RMC Aggregates UK
John Sutherland, divisional director central services, RMC Concrete Products
Nationwide Building Society RMJM Architects
Roberts & Partners
Adam Turk, sales and marketing director, Jeld-Wen
Robertson Group (Construction)
Clive Wilding, managing director Raven Properties, Raven Group Robinson & McIlwaine
Robinson & Sons
Observers Rodney Housing Association
Clive Clowes, head of Housing Procurement Roger Black Partnership
Practice and Development, The Housing Roger Bullivant
Corporation Roger Preston and Partners

Rolfe Judd
Brian Moone, director, Construction Best ROM
Practice Programme Roofdec
Roscoe Capita
Elizabeth Whatmore, head of Construction
Rose Project Services
Sector Unit, DTI
Rosebery Housing Association
Anne Kirkham, Housing Policy, DTLR Rotherham Metropolitan
Borough Council
Roughton London
RESPECT FOR PEOPLE Rowan Structures
Royal & Sun Alliance
Alan Crane, chair Insurance Group
Royce Primary School
Steering Group RPA
Philip White, head of Operations, Construction Division, Rubicon Associates
Health and Safety Executive Ruddle Wilkinson
Rural Stirling Housing Association
Noel Foley, consultant, Local Government Task Force
s
Rybka Smith Battle & Ginsler
Rodger Evans, Construction Sponsorship Division, DTI Rydon Group
Mike McDermott, Construction Sponsorship Division, DTI
Sheila Hoile, director of Training Strategy, CITB Safeway Stores

Salvation Army Housing Association
Graham Watts, chief executive, Construction Industry Council
Sames
Don Ward, chief executive, Design Build Foundation Sarsen Housing Association
Schal
Schindler
Schmidlin UK
17
A to Z
Schuco UK The Local Government Task Force

Scott Brownrigg & Turner
Tim Byles, chair, chief executive of Norfolk County Council
Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick
Secron
Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council
Board Members
Selhal Housing Steve Bundred, chief executive, London Borough of Camden
Serco Property & Design Alan Crane, chair, Rethinking Construction
Sercon Controls
Servite Houses Deryk Eke, construction director, Office of Government Commerce
Severfield Reeve Graham Farrant, chief executive, London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Severn Vale Housing Society
Shaftesbury Housing Mike Foy, assistant chief executive (Best Value, Procurement and Asset Management),
Sheffield Insultaions St Helens MBC
Shepherd
John Hesp, head of Corporate Contracts, Southampton City Council
Shepherd and Wedderburn
Shepherd Construction Keith Hilton, assistant executive director housing and property services, Barnsley MBC
Shepherds Bush Housing Association
Roy Irwin, chief inspector of housing, Audit Commission
Sidell Gibson
Signpost Housing Association Dr Alastair Jefford, county transport operations manager, Kent County Council
Silcock Dawson & Ptns
Bob King, city architect and director of special projects, Manchester City Council
Simon Vellacott
Simons Interiors Pauline Nee, borough architect and building surveyor, London Borough of Southwark
Simplex Foundations
Martin Pearson, chief executive, Horsham District Council
Simpson Associates
Sivyer (Transport) Ian Perry, chief executive, Harvest Housing Group
Skanska
Trevor Pugh, director of environmental services, London Borough of Harrow
Skanska Cementation Foundations
Skanska Construction Sarah Wood, director of finance and performance review, Birmingham City Council
Skanska Foundations
David Young, director of environmental services, Oxfordshire County Council
Slough Estates
SLW Architectural Aluminium Terry Rogers, director of community services, Corporation of London
Smith Smalley Architects
John Thornton, director of e government, IDeA
Smyth Steel
South London Family Housing Geoff Tierney, divisional manager local government capacity and modernisation, DTLR
Association
South Manchester University
Hospital NHS Trust Observers
South Shropshire Housing Association Elizabeth Whatmore, head of Construction
South Somerset Homes Sector Unit, DTI
South West Water
Melvin Hughes, Local Government
South Yorkshire Housing Association
Competition and Quality, DTLR
Southern Education & Library Board
Southern Electrical Contracts Neil Kingham, Economic and Environmental
Southern Housing Group Policy, Local Government Association
Southern Water
SP Oldroyd Flooring
Martin Lipson, Public Private Partnership
Space New Living Programme
Speke Gartson Partnership
Brian Moone, director, Construction Best
Sport England
Practice Programme
Springboard Housing Association
St George Mukund Patel, head of Schools, Buildings
St George Central London and Design Unit, Department for Education
St Helens Metropolitan and Skills
Borough Council
St. George South London John Plumb, senior consultant IPF, CIPFA/IPF
Stafford Borough Council
Staffordshire County Council
Staffordshire Housing Association
Stanhope
18
A to Z
Making contact Stannah Lifts

Stansted Airport Project Team
Executive director
Steel Construction Institute
David Crewe 020 7837 5702 david.crewe@rethinkingconstruction.org.uk
Stent Foundations
Movement for Innovation Stephenson Construction
Ian Pannell 01923 664 821 pannelli@m4i.org.uk Stockport MBC – Property Services
020 7691 0220 Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council
Stride Treglown
Housing Forum
Structherm
Judith Harrison 020 7691 0220 judith@thehousingforum.demon.co.uk
Styles and Wood
Local Government Task Force Suffolk County Council
Peter Bishop 020 7837 8286 peterbishop@lgtf.org.uk Suffolk Housing Society

Surplushop International
Respect for People
Surrey County Council
Adrian Terry 07770 841 814 adrian.terry@rethinkingconstruction.org.uk Surrey Heath Housing Association
Construction Best Practice Programme Swale Borough Council

Swan Housing Association
Brian Moone 01923 664 260 mooneb@cbpp.org.uk
Swaythling Housing Society
Demonstration Projects Swift Roofing Contracts
Brian De Geer 020 7691 0220 brian@thehousingforum.demon.co.uk Swish Building Products
Sword Construction
In the regions East Anglia Symonds Group
t
Ali Mafi
London 07974 138283
mafia@m4i.org.uk T Manners & Sons
Adrian Blumenthal
Tapmagic
01923 664830, 07786 366122 Sue Innes
Tarmac Precast Concrete
blumenthala@m4i.org.uk 07770 847710
Tarmac Quarry Products
sue.innes@environment-agency.gov.uk
Tarmac Topmix
Southern Tameside Metropolitan Borough
Contact to be arranged, in the meantime North East Council
020 7691 0220 Jaki Howes Taylor Woodrow Construction

0113 283 1714, 07711 817491 Taylor Young
team@thehousingforum.demon.co.uk
howesj@m4i.org.uk Tayside Contracts
Technic Installations
South West
Techrete (lrl)
Trish Johnson North West
Tees Components
07813 140034 Nigel Curry
Tees Valley Housing Group
johnsonp@m4i.org.uk 07779 128852
Teesland
nigel.curry@helices-consulting.co.uk
Terence Garvey Assoc
Midlands Terrapin
Lorna Gagie Scotland Tesco Stores
07949 243283 Bob Hill Thames Valley Housing Association
gagiel@m4i.org.uk 01355 576258 Thames Water
hillr@bre.co.uk The Agency
Northern Ireland The Austin Company
Wales The Berkeley Group

Sharon McClements
Trish Johnson The BOC Foundation
02890 368505
The Broadway Consultancy
rethinkingconstruction@ulster.ac.uk 07813 140034
The Cambridge Housing Society
johnsonp@m4i.org.uk
The Chartered Partnership
Rethinking Construction Centre
The Concrete Society
Northern Ireland Rethinking Construction Centre Wales
The Guinness Trust
George Heaney Denys Morgan The Kellett & Robinson Partnership
02890 366086 02920 630561 The KUT Partnership
rethinkingconstruction@ulster.ac.uk denysmorgan@constructionplus.net The Landscape Partnership
The Lowry Trust Development Co.
19
A to Z
The MG Partnership Construction Best Practice Clubs

The Moray Council
CBPP has set up a national network of Construction Best Practice Clubs that meet on a regular
The Palmer Partnership
basis to improve best practice in construction at a local level. The contacts for these clubs are
The Places for People Group
listed below.
The Raven Partnership
The Royal Borough of Kensington Berkshire Paul Hastings 01494533610 p.hastings@virgin.net
and Chelsea
The Royal Opera House Brighton John Maclean 01293545058 John.Maclean@Decra.co.uk
The Steel Construction Institute
The Tate Bristol Andrew Carpenter 01749880441 ajcarpenter@forticrete.com
The Vale Housing Association
Cambridge Richard Patterson 01223463606 rlp@mm-camb.mottmac.com
Thomas Sinden Construction
Thomas Vale Construction Cardiff Paul Ritchings 01179166202 paul.ritchings@wyg.com
Three Rivers Housing Group
City and East London Richard King 02076129504 r.king@llewelyn-davies-ltd.com
Thurrock Council
Touchstone Housing Association Coventry Nigel Gaynor 02476446011 nigel.gaynor@lsc.gov.uk
Town and Country Housing Group
Townshend Landscape Architecture Dorset and Wiltshire Peter Sheppard 01425480392 pjsheppard_@hotmail.com
Toynbee Housing Association
East Midlands Ralph Middlesmore 01159780788 rmiddlemore@mansell.plc.uk
TPS Special Services
Tracey Concrete East Surrey Frank Meades 01883732830 fmeades@tandridge.gov.uk
Traditional Housing Bureau
Essex Paul Wainwright 01473271660 pwainwright@ciob.org.uk
Trafford MBC
Travel Inn – Whitbread Hotel Company Glasgow Hugh McCusker 01236823333 hugh.mccusker@mowlem.com
Travis Perkins Trading Company
Tripos Receptor Research Guildford Mark Pearce 01483776392 mark.pearce7@btinternet.com
Trowers & Hamlins
Kent Mick Lynn 01580201308 lindisfarne@quarry-house.co.uk
Try Accord
u
Turner & Townsend Liverpool Geoff Rimmer 01519442030 geoffrimmercs@cunliffesurveyors.co.uk
Milton Keynes Mark Johnson 01908304700 mark.johnson@davislangdon-uk.com

Ultrastore
North East Catriona Lingwood 01915153344 catrionalingwood@servicechallenge.co.uk
United House
Universal Steel North West Andrew Thomas 01614861156 andrew.thomas@birse.co.uk
University of Bristol
Northern Ireland Trevor Patterson 02891479883 tpatterson@ciob.org.uk
University of East London
University of Glamorgan Oxford David Notley 01865880099 davidnotley@leadbitter.com
University of Reading
University of Southampton South London Steve Foskett 02074014800 foskett.steve@schal.co.uk
v
University of Warwick
South Yorkshire David Watson 01142490005 david@proconskills.co.uk
Staffordshire Sharon Cooper 01332345622 sharonc@abaderby.co.uk

Van Dam UK
Swansea Ian James (18002) 01639 889800
Vardon Health & Fitness
ianjames.andrewscott@virgin.net
(e-mail preferred)
w
Vortec
Wessex Andrew Riggs 01962829329 andrew.riggs@ballast.co.uk
W T Hills West Midlands Steven Chinn 07950403473 forward-eng-products@lineone.co.uk

W Maher & Sons
West Yorkshire Frank Hill 01724280022 frankhill@britcon.co.uk
Wales & West Housing Association
Wales Tourist Board Devon Stephen Bennett 01884234305 sbennett@middevon.gov.uk
Walker Simpson Architects
Wallace Whittle & Partners
Walter Llewellyn & Sons
Walter Thompson (Contractors)
Wandle Housing Association
Warings Contractors
Warrington Borough Council
20 Warwick Manufacturing Group

A to Z
Water Service Northern Ireland

Waterloo Air Management
Waterman Partnership
Wates Construction
Watson Steel
WDR & RT Taggart
Weaver Construction
Weeks Tech. Services
Welsh Development Agency
Wessex Water Services
West Anglia Insulation
West Pennine Housing Association
West Sussex County Council
West Wiltshire Housing Society
Western Challenge Housing
Association
Westminster Council
Weymouth & Portland Borough Council
Wheatley M & E Services
Whicheloe McFarlane HDR
Whitbread
Whitby Bird & Partners
White Young Green Consulting
Engineers
Whitefriars Services
Whiting Landscapes
Willis
Wiggens Gee Construction
Wilkinson Eyre
William Hughes
William Sutton Trust
Willis Caroon Hinton
Willmott Dixon Construction
Willmott Dixon Housing
Willmott Dixon Housing
Wilson Bowden
Wilson James
Wiltshire County Council
Wimpey Homes
Winchester City Council
Winchester Housing Group
Wintech Services
Wolseley Centres
Woolf
Worcestershire County Council
Wrekin Construction
WS Atkins
WSP Group
WT Partnership
WT Wills
Wyn Thomas
Yorkon
y
Yeoman & Edwards
York Housing Association
Yorkshire Water Services
21
Thanking our
supporters
The Movement for Innovation ACCORD HIGHWAYS AGENCY
acknowledges the substantial
financial contributions by its ARUP JARVIS
Supporter Members:
BAA JOHN DOYLE
BOVIS LEND LEASE MACE
BYRNE BROS RAILTRACK
CITB SHEPHERD
DEFENCE ESTATES SKANSKA
EMCOR DRAKE & SKULL SLOUGH ESTATES
The Housing Forum acknowledges ARENA HOUSING ASSOCIATION PRP ARCHITECTS

the substantial financial
contributions by its BELLWAY RAVEN PROPERTIES
Core Members:
DAVID WILSON HOMES REDROW
EAST THAMES HOUSING GROUP SOUTHERN HOUSING GROUP
EPS MAINTENANCE SWAN HOUSING ASSOCIATION
FAMILY HOUSING ASSOCIATION THE GUINNESS TRUST
H & H CELCON THOMAS SINDEN

CONSTRUCTION
HARVEST HOUSING GROUP
TRADITIONAL HOUSING BUREAU
HEYWOOD WILLIAMS
TROWERS & HAMLINS
HIGGINS GROUP
UNITED HOUSE
HILL PARTNERSHIPS
WATES CONSTRUCTION
HOME HOUSING GROUP
WESTERN CHALLENGE HOUSING
JELD WEN (UK) ASSOCIATION
LOVELL PARTNERSHIPS WILLMOTT DIXON HOUSING
NATIONWIDE BUILDING SOCIETY WOLSELEY CENTRES
NHBC
Core funding for Rethinking Construction, including the Construction Best Practice Programme
is provided by the Department of Trade and Industry
RETHINKING
CONSTRUCTION
INNOVATION
AND RESEARCH
A Review of
Government R&D
Policies and Practices
By Sir John Fairclough

Annex ?
RETHINKING
CONSTRUCTION
INNOVATION
?? AND RESEARCH
CONTENTS
(i) Foreword 3
(ii) Executive summary 4
(iii) Introduction 6
Part 1 Background and evidence
Chapter 1 Assembling the evidence 8

Chapter 2 Current research funding and participation 9
Chapter 3 Industry’s strategic engagement with government funded R&D 12
Chapter 4 Ensuring skills for the future 14
Chapter 5 The international dimension 16
Part 2 Government’s role in supporting construction R&D
Chapter 6 Government’s role in supporting construction R&D 18

Chapter 7 Government as regulator 18
Chapter 8 Government as sponsor 21
Chapter 9 Government as client 26
Chapter 10 Government as policy maker 27
Part 3 Conclusions and recommendations
Chapter 11 Conclusions and recommendations 28
Annexes
A Terms of reference 37
B Consultees 38
C Underpinning analysis 39
D Building Regulations forward requirements 82
E References and further reading 90
F Contacts 94
G Glossary 96
Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices 2 R e t hRi e
n tkhi n
i ngk C
i nogn sCtor n
u sc t ri o
unc t Ii n
o n oIvnantoi o
van t ai onnd aRneds eRaersceha: rAc hR: eAv iRe ewv ioefwGoofv eGronvme er n
nm en
t R &tDRP&oDl i cPioelsi cai n
eds aPnr a
d cPt ircaecst i c e s 3
RETHINKING
CONSTRUCTION
INNOVATION
AND RESEARCH
A review of Government R&D Policies and Practices

By Sir John Fairclough
(i) FOREWORD
I wish to express my sincere thanks to the many

people who have contributed to this Review.
Their open and frank contributions have been
of immense importance. I owe particular thanks
to Liz Liston-Jones who has organised the
Review and helped write the report. The
conclusions are not of my own invention but
have emerged from my discussions with
industry and government representatives.
My role has been one of a catalyst to
understand how Research and Development
(R&D) funded by Government might be better
focused and lead to improvements in the
overall construction process. I chose to take a
broad view and I have considered design,
planning, construction, and end use of buildings
in an attempt to gain an insight into the role
of innovation. I also examined the processes This Report was commissioned by, and is
through which government R&D policies for therefore primarily aimed at, the Government
the Construction Industry are determined Departments responsible for sponsorship and
and managed. regulation of the construction industry. There
are important new challenges too for the
industry, the research community, and its clients
– not least for the rest of Government in its role
as the major client of the industry. I hope they
will all take time to digest and discuss the
recommendations in this Report, as I believe all
have much to gain from joining forces to act
upon its recommendations.
Everyone in the country stands to benefit from a

modern, efficient, high quality and good value
construction industry. Innovation, driven by
well founded R&D, is the best way forward.
Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices 5
A REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT R&D POLICIES AND PRACTICES A REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT R&D POLICIES AND PRACTICES
(ii) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The innovative capacity of an industry influences its This represents a significant challenge to the entire MAIN CONCLUSIONS
long-term competitiveness and effectiveness. R&D is construction community, its processes and
technologies, as well as to its clients and customers INVESTMENT (P.28)
an important driver of innovation. No valid argument
was presented to justify the construction industry who must demand buildings whose economics are • Current Government investment in construction
being any different – R&D is as important to the considered on a whole life basis. R&D has a pivotal R&D should be safeguarded
construction industry as any other. But it is not given role to play here but the effort needs to be carefully • Increase investment on R&D supporting:
the same priority as measured in R&D expenditure as focused on those activities in which the industry –Productivity
a proportion of turnover. The construction industry will invest either out of enlightened self-interest –Value for public sector clients
GOVERNMENT FOCUS (P.32)
organises its resources around projects and although or to respond to the demands of clients and –Strategic issues
it is evident that considerable innovation occurs and government policy. • Tailor Government R&D procurement to reflect
STRATEGIC VISION (P.28) the various motivations for government support:
is funded within projects there is a problem with
To help provide this strategic thinking and orchestrate – Regulator
institutional learning to capture this innovation for • Acknowledge construction’s contribution to quality
the dialogue, I have proposed new roles for the – Sponsor
future projects. of life agenda
Strategic Forum and for the Construction Research – Client
• Facilitate a strategic vision owned by the industry
It is universally recognised that the industry must and Innovation Strategy Panel (CRISP). – Policy maker
• R&D priorities should be based on strategic analysis
improve its performance. There are many pressures of the issues faced by the sector
The industry and the public interest are inextricably
not least of which is the need for the industry to RESPONDING TO UNFORESEEN EVENTS (P.34)
linked and Government policies should reflect this.
become more profitable and at the same time, MECHANISMS FOR CHANGE (P.29) • Don’t maintain government funded research
deliver better value for money. The Strategic Forum, As regulator, Government has a responsibility to teams ‘just in case’
• The Strategic Forum takes pivotal role in strategic
which reflects the interests of the whole industry, establish a framework that anticipates emerging
thinking • By procuring R&D on merit, encourage centres
has recently been established, and is concentrating needs but protects a minimum building standard. and networks of excellence
• New arrangements for prioritising R&D building on
its initial energy on some key issues of fundamental Government should wholly fund the R&D required
foundations laid by CRISP
importance to delivery of the vision set out in Sir for this responsibility. SKILLS AND RECRUITMENT (P.34)
John Egan’s report ‘Rethinking Construction’. COMMISSIONING RESEARCH (P.31) • Excite researchers by defining programmes of work
As sponsor for the industry, government policies
This represents a bold initiative to break the mould should facilitate change but not impose or assume • Define longer term programmes of R&D based in terms of quality of life issues and sustainability
of outdated and often adversarial processes that control. Business issues and a clear strategic vision on analysis of problems • Demand multi disciplinary teams, and more inter-
operate in the sector. Sir John Egan did not consider should drive industrial R&D policies and practices. • Procurement of R&D on merit, avoiding change of people between industry and academe
the role of R&D in his report, but having made The Industry must be encouraged to provide the monopoly supply • Centres of excellence will encourage deeper skills
considerable progress in getting the industry to focus leadership to set a strategic vision and define its • Encourage collaboration, ensure relevance to and help to recruit and retain research staff
on the need for change it is now timely to do so. R&D needs. industry needs, institute strong quality • Facilitate high profile generalist construction
Sir John acknowledges that a carefully focused R&D control mechanisms qualification
As client, Government has a vital role to stimulate
programme will be required to support the work • Improve dissemination, evaluate impact, assess
innovation by demanding better value and fitness RESEARCH BASE STRUCTURE (P.35)
of the Strategic Forum. return on government investment
for purpose from public buildings, and particularly • Encourage closer working between traditional
Once the immediate activities of the Strategic Forum to take account of the interests of the eventual construction research organisations
have been initiated, they will have an opportunity users of these buildings. • Enhance intermediary role of traditional research
to build an outward looking vision. The sector has
The strategic framework for R&D should be owned base, including a remit to distil knowledge,
suffered from a lack of focus and an ability to speak
and managed by industry. But in order to facilitate from outside the UK and outside construction,
with a single voice on those issues that influence
early operation of the relevant bodies the for use by the UK sector
it and its stakeholders as a whole. The sector
Government should provide the necessary
needs a vision – a strategic perspective – not least INNOVATIVE CAPACITY (P.35)
foundation funding to enable the strategic thinking
because effective R&D must be driven from clear
• Support the best innovators
required, after which the industry should pay.
strategic goals.
• Encourage innovation by providing guidance
Government would thereafter participate in and
The sector has a profound influence over our and encouraging participation in the Teaching
contribute to these bodies as the guardian of the
quality of life at home and at work and needs to Company Scheme.
public interest and as the industry’s major client,
demonstrate that it will be a force for positive providing clear representation of policy requirements
progress. One issue, which will become dominant, on such issues as sustainable development.
is the need for sustainable development.
6 Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices 7
A REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT R&D POLICIES AND PRACTICES ??REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT R&D POLICIES AND PRACTICES
A
(iii) INTRODUCTION
This Review was commissioned by Nick

Raynsford, the then Construction Minister in the THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT IS IN 3 PARTS (PLUS ANNEXES):
Department of the Environment, Transport and
the Regions (DETR), in May 2001. He wanted an PART 1: BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE:
independent view of what future role Background information and evidence relating to generic issues raised by the Review:
government should play in supporting
Chapter 1 Assembling the evidence is about inputs to the Review, and how the Review
construction research.
was undertaken
One of the main reasons for undertaking the
review was the anticipated expiry of the Chapter 2 Current research funding and participation discusses the current regime for public
Framework Agreement with the Building funding of construction research, including the main players and the levels of funding
Research Establishment (BRE) in March 2002. they receive
BRE was until 1997 a part of the former
Chapter 3 Industry’s strategic engagement with government funded R&D discusses participation
Department of the Environment, undertaking
by industry in the government’s R&D programme
research to support the Department’s regulatory
THE TERMS OF REFERENCE –
and sponsorship role. In 1997 it was privatised, Chapter 4 Ensuring skills for the future considers the current state of the research base and how
A SUMMARY
with a five year guarantee of a minimum amount Government procurement policies and practices affect its health
(full details at Annex A)
of work which it would be offered each year on
Chapter 5 The international dimension assesses the current exploitation of ideas from abroad,
an exclusive tender basis by the Department. To assess what research competencies and and how construction would benefit from better arrangements
Over the five years since privatisation in excess of
facilities government should help maintain
50% of the Department’s expenditure on
in order to:
construction research was with the BRE under PART 2: GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION R&D:
the terms of the Framework Agreement. The • provide scientific underpinning for the
This section asks why Government should support construction R&D. It goes on to specify four
expiry of this Agreement therefore provided a Building Regulations;
categories of Government support for construction R&D which are used to inform a more detailed
stimulus to review arrangements for the future. • be able to respond quickly to urgent concerns discussion of the issues to be considered in framing future arrangements.
which may arise over the safety and health
Following the general election of June 2001,
implications of buildings and structures; and Chapter 6 Government’s role in supporting construction R&D
construction sponsorship was transferred from
the former DETR to the Department of Trade and • support government policy to ensure a more Chapter 7 Government as regulator
Industry (DTI). The newly created Department of competitive and sustainable UK construction
Chapter 8 Government as sponsor
Transport, Local Government and the Regions industry.
(DTLR) assumed responsibility for building To review the processes by which research Chapter 9 Government as client
regulation. From June 2001 onwards, this Review priorities are established and research
was jointly overseen by both Departments. It
Chapter 10 Government as policy maker
commissioned in order to recommend
provided a timely opportunity for consideration effective systems for meeting future demand.
of how to maximise the benefits of the new
To conduct a review of the research PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
arrangements for all the various construction
competencies and facilities currently available. Finally, the Report gives conclusions and recommendations for the future, which although aimed
stakeholders – clients (including government),
the industry, the research base and the wider To make recommendations about the level primarily at DTLR and DTI as sponsors of the Review, are also aimed at wider stakeholders in the
community. For that reason it was clear that the and distribution of continuing support which industry and beyond.
Departments would welcome a broader review DTI/DTLR should provide to support key Chapter 11 Conclusions and recommendations
than that set down in the terms of reference. competencies nationally;
To make any other relevant recommendations
PART 1
PART 1: BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE
BACKGROUND
AND EVIDENCE
1 ASSEMBLING THE EVIDENCE 2 CURRENT RESEARCH FUNDING

AND PARTICIPATION
The Review was undertaken between May 2001
and January 2002. Key individuals and In 2000, construction produced about 5.2% • DTI (formerly DETR) – encouraging national and
representatives were invited to give their of GDP, about 40% from the public sector international competitiveness and health of the
views in person and in writing - a full list of (including the private finance initiative). If value- industry, and improving its ability to harness
consultees is attached as ANNEX B. These added produced from construction materials and the benefits of science and technology and to
submissions informed the findings of this report, related components is included, the contribution develop its own capabilities. Support of applied
and the individual discussions were extremely to GDP rises to around 8%. For example, research with direct relevance to a number of
helpful in testing emerging ideas. A consultation construction draws heavily upon the products of constituents within the sector.
meeting, held on 4 December 2001, provided mining and quarrying, upon manufactured Funding from DTI’s programme is currently
a further sounding board and gave the components and parts, as well as other services. around £15 - £18 m annually.
opportunity to discuss the broad outlines of In comparison, manufacturing produced nearly
the Review’s conclusions. 19% of GDP whilst mining and quarrying • DTLR (formerly DETR) - protecting and
Several written inputs were requested, in order accounted for almost 3% and electricity, gas and enhancing issues of public interest, including
In support of this input, the Science and
to provide an assessment of the key issues facing water supply for 2%. Wholesale and retail the making of building regulations. The
Technology Policy Research unit of Sussex
the industry, and how they might best be produced nearly 16% of GDP and other services regulations cover building design and
University (SPRU) was appointed to provide
addressed in the future. Written inputs were accounted for more than 46%. construction to ensure the safety and health
underpinning analysis of the construction
received from the following (which can be of people in and around buildings as well as
research base, attached as ANNEX C. This work Moreover, construction produces, maintains and
viewed on the DTI and DTLR websites): the energy efficiency of the built environment.
involved a review of existing data sources adapts around 60% of all fixed capital
Support for testing and development of
indicating the nature, size and condition of the • Construction Research and Innovation investment. These are the buildings, structures
Strategy Panel (CRISP) materials and systems of relevance to public
research base. It included analysis of the flow of and infrastructures upon which most other
economic activities depend. The quality and policy-making. Funding from DTLR’s
new people into built environment higher
• Co-Construct (collaboration between Programme is currently around £6m annually.
education courses, the quality of construction- efficiency of construction therefore has a bearing
5 construction research associations:
related university departments, industrial on long-term economic growth and industrial • EPSRC - supporting the engineering and
Construction Industry Research and
research publications and previous input-output competitiveness in the UK and in export markets. physical sciences research base, including
Information Association – CIRIA;
analysis of the flow of research funds in Construction processes and the function, engineering and production management,
Building Services Research and Information
construction. It also involved developing new desirability, cost, sustainability and utility of primarily in Universities. It aims to:
Association – BSRIA; Timber Research
databases using information held by DTI finished products affects the quality of life of
and Development Association – TRADA; a) develop new knowledge;
(formerly DETR) and the Engineering and Physical everyone living in the UK.
Steel Construction Institute – SCI; b) train new people for industry, public and
Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) – the principal
and the Concrete Society) Construction thus impacts extremely widely. non-governmental organisations and for
funders of construction R&D.
It does not simply affect those in the research careers; and
A small-scale survey of connectivity between • Building Research Establishment (BRE)
construction industry, but all stakeholders in the c) build public trust and confidence in the
industry and the research base was implemented • Reading Construction Forum design, construction and use of built assets. benefits of new technology and scientific
in the UK, and a survey of international experts
A narrow definition of construction research discoveries.
was conducted to seek views on strengths and • Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
cannot properly serve the future needs of the
weaknesses in UK construction research. In • Construction Industry Council (CIC ) Around £25m was awarded to construction
sector and its stakeholders, and for this reason
addition, a workshop was held with Reading research grants, with a larger sum being
In addition, the building regulations the Review as a whole has taken a much wider
Construction Forum (RCF) representing a range invested in research of relevance to construction.
division of DTLR provided an assessment view of construction’s contribution to
of industry views, and in-depth interviews were The main programmes funding construction-
of their likely future requirements for the UK economy and quality of life.
carried out with senior people in construction related research are: Innovative Manufacturing,
research to underpin the Building
research. 2.1 Public funding for Environment and Infrastructure, and General
Regulations. Much of this work has construction research Engineering. Newly established programmes
SPRU also contributed throughout the Review, traditionally been undertaken by the BRE.
such as Sustainability and the Urban
helping to develop ideas and frame The assessment is a good model, showing Over the last 10 years public funding for
Environment will also be of significance.
recommendations. how it is possible to plan requirements construction research has been, in total,
In 2001, EPSRC established new funding
where research needs can be identified between £50 and £70m annually. Funds
mechanisms to consolidate research in the
along strategic lines. Details are attached for construction research are spread
Innovative Manufacturing Programme.
as ANNEX D. between several organisations, although
In the initial round, three Centres for research
the former DETR Programme and that of
in construction were established at
EPSRC provided the bulk of it:
Loughborough, Reading and Salford Universities.
PART 1: BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE PART 1: BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE
• There are other sources of funding for research 2.2 European funding 2.4 Research base - universities stress is that much more collaboration between
relevant to the construction sector. The industry and academia is required if the industry
European Framework Programmes are a The university sector and the construction
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) is to properly benefit from university ideas and
significant source of research revenue for the UK. industry have traditionally been poorly coupled,
funds some research of relevance to expertise.
As a rule of thumb the UK wins around 14% of and there is evidence that the industry at large is
construction in management and in projects EU research funding. No measured record is still wary of academics. Since the introduction of 2.6 Research within
on social issues and economic geography kept of UK construction’s share of funds, but the EPSRC’s Innovative Manufacturing Initiative (IMI) construction companies
(e.g. cities and urban development). EU is perceived by a number of players in the seven years ago the coupling has improved, and
The total investment of direct relevance to Research carried out by the business sector is
research base, and a very few companies, as a the major university construction research
measured as Business Expenditure on R&D -
construction research, broadly defined, is major source of funding. departments are now working directly with the
BERD. Total BERD carried out in the construction
between £2-£3m annually. most enlightened industry players. So, from a
2.3 Research base: independent sector is very small for the size of sector.
low base, the position is improving. There is
• Other agencies promote research that has research organisations In 1999 construction BERD was £40m per
nevertheless much potential for the industry to
relevance to the construction industry, annum (ONS data).
The non university sector for construction is engage more actively with academe in the
for example public funders such as the
dominated by BRE. BRE was established in 1927 future, which government R&D procurement Research and innovation in construction often
Highways Agency, Environment Agency,
to test materials and components and raise arrangements should do more to encourage. occurs through design and engineering
and Housing Corporation, and charitable
construction standards. It has traditionally processes or problem solving on projects and
or non-profit distributing bodies such as University research funding for construction
provided independent advice to government this ‘investment’ is not calculated in BERD.
the Foundation for the Built Environment, comes principally from the EPSRC. The funding is
policy makers. Since privatisation in 1997,
the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the more evenly distributed amongst the largest There is also an issue about the industry’s
it has received 64% of former DETR construction
Ove Arup Foundation. Programmes jointly receivers (29 Universities received more than capacity to absorb innovation and new research
R&D funding, amounting to about £80m.
£1m in the last 4 years, compared with 8 knowledge. The best in the industry are as good
funded by the Research Councils, for example
The review found general support for the role organisations funded by DTI/DTLR receiving more as any in the manufacturing sector at
the Tyndall Centre on Climate Change, are
of BRE, and for the view that any new than £1m in the same period). Nevertheless, the undertaking and gaining knowledge from
also important. The contribution of all these
arrangements should allow BRE to thrive - university construction research base is more research. But they are in the minority. Of the
agencies relates to construction research -
on merit - in the future. fragmented than in many other subjects, with 85 160,000 contractors operating in the UK,
broadly defined as production and use of
universities being recipients – many of them of fewer than 20,000 employ people with
the built environment. Another key element of the research base is
relatively small amounts of funding. Research higher technical qualifications and only around
represented by the member based research
Public investment in construction research needs conducted at universities tends to be focused on 200 employ 5 or more people with such
associations. The main recipients of DTI/DTLR
to be seen in the context of the total national longer-term problems and development of new qualifications. Some of these companies may
funding outside the BRE are: Building Services
expenditure on construction each ideas. appreciate the need and have a desire to
Research and Information Association (BSRIA)
year of some £64bn, and public expenditure innovate, but if they are typical of the industry
4%; Construction Industry Research and This sector trains new people, providing future
on construction procurement of about £25bn. then their size and composition make it difficult.
Information Association (CIRIA) 4%; Timber practitioners and researchers for the industry.
Sir John Egan’s construction task force report The rest are simply too small or too preoccupied
Research and Development Association (TRADA) However the number of applicants to built
‘Rethinking Construction’ concluded that annual with survival to engage in R&D in a meaningful
3%; HR Wallingford 3%; Steel Construction environment disciplines has declined dramatically
improvements of 10% in value were achievable way. This does not mean that the R&D agenda is
Institute (SCI) 2%. Over recent years in the past 6 years during a period when student
year on year. Suitable R&D will be needed to irrelevant to these businesses – there is probably
government has supported a partnership of numbers across all disciplines have risen.
make this happen. Current public investment in more scope to improve the quality and image of
CIRIA, BSRIA, TRADA, SCI and the Concrete
construction research represents less than 3% of 2.5 Incentives for collaboration construction by innovation and change in this
Society, who now have a joint web presence
potential annual savings to the exchequer. between industry and academe most conservative segment of the industry than
and collaborate under the name Co-Construct.
in any other. What it does mean is that these
In the past, funding and assessment of academic
Co-Construct and their membership have found businesses cannot be expected to engage
research has not helped to incentivise
competition for research funds skewed by the with a strategic research agenda – instead
interdisciplinary working, nor has it helped to
BRE Framework Agreement. The Framework they require targeted help to improve, including
incentivise industry-relevant research. Although
ends in March 2002. This means that a new distillation of information on new practices.
there has been more emphasis, for example in
accommodation will need to be worked out This is currently delivered by several means,
the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), on
between BRE and the Research Associations including performance-based building
collaboration with industry, evidence is
to ensure a strong and thriving independent regulations and the Construction Best
inconclusive as to whether there has been
research organisation base for construction. Practice Programme.
a substantive change in attitude in the
construction research field. The key point to
Industry championship and leadership of 3 INDUSTRY’S STRATEGIC ENGAGEMENT One of the consequences of fragmentation operandi involving short term task groups
research is a good indicator of high impact WITH GOVERNMENT FUNDED R&D is that the sector lacks a vision – about its role in convened to tackle particular perceived
projects, and of positive returns to the society and about how to better serve its problems, identify gaps in research and advise
The review found too little evidence of clear
collaborators. It is generally accepted that R&D customers and wider stakeholders. It does have the relevant research funders. Its achievements
ownership of policy or future R&D needs by
intensity in businesses is positively correlated an excellent blueprint for process improvement have been as a result of the considerable time
industry bodies. Industry seems to expect
with company performance. Innovation gained within the industry – Sir John Egan’s report and effort which a small but committed group of
Government to provide policy and strategy.
through active collaboration in R&D projects has ‘Rethinking Construction’. This was written to industry representatives were prepared to devote
But there is a strong case for policy and strategy
a better chance of becoming embedded in help the industry solve some critical immediate voluntarily to its activities.
to be owned by the industry itself, with a clear
company practice than innovation invented ‘over problems, and is helping to lead companies
role for government as major client and guardian But CRISP has its limitations, which are generally
there’. For all these reasons, government towards a more customer centric way of
of the public interest. Leading industry players acknowledged. It is still not well known across
procurement of R&D should encourage more working. Rethinking Construction has been
should grasp the opportunities set out in this the industry. It has found it difficult to generate
construction companies to engage positively in widely accepted, is beginning to have a
report and take a more proactive role in debating wider interest and buy in from the industry.
collaborative research, and maintain investment profound influence on the industry, and has
and setting the research and innovation agenda. And it is sometimes perceived as having been
with the best companies that are already helped to bring forward and encourage
too open to influence by vested interests.
engaged with the research programme. 3.1 Fragmentation innovation. But it is not the whole story.
There is a wider debate needed about the Despite this, CRISP represents a real attempt
2.7 DTI/DTLR funding summary The fragmented nature of the industry seems to to develop a pan-industry strategy setting
role of the construction industry in creating a
have played a large part in making construction body for construction R&D. The industry
In total, DTI/DTLR have funded 172 organisations better quality of life for everyone, which the
reliant on government leadership. should build on its achievements, increase
during the past 4 years. 164 of these were industry needs to grasp and lead.
recipients of just 19% of the funding, • The industry is characterised by a large number CRISP’s visibility and seek to provide it with
3.2 Priority setting a strong mandate to help construction think
representing a wide distribution, mainly of small of relatively small firms, a large number of
projects carried out in a fragmented research relatively small construction projects, and low The former DETR’s construction research about the future.
base. This can be seen as both a strength and a barriers to entry, particularly in the (small) programme had at its heart the twin aims There are many other panels, networks and
weakness. On the one hand it has perhaps contracting sub-sector. of supporting the Rethinking Construction clubs. Some have particular constituencies –
spread funds too thinly, not allowing any centre initiative and promoting more sustainable for example the Reading Construction Forum,
• The industry is fragmented because of the
except BRE to build up the critical mass and long construction. It included a very wide ranging European Construction Institute, CIC’s R&I
many disciplines involved – designers,
term funding to make a real difference. On the portfolio, details of which can be found in Committee, Construction Productivity Network.
other hand, by funding a large variety of constructors, professional consultants and ANNEX C. There was a commendable emphasis The member based research associations also
different organisations the DTI/DTLR schemes engineers, and specialist contractors. It is on consultation with industry, and priorities were bring powerful networks to bear. Industry
encouraged many firms to get engaged in fragmented because of long and complex directly influenced by the work of the engagement of this sort is extremely important,
construction research, and provided funds for supply chains, bringing together the different Construction Research and Innovation Strategy and should be built upon. But it is also vital
some small, new and arguably more innovative specialists. Low profit margins combined with Panel (CRISP) and the Building Regulations that the various bodies work better together
organisations to join the research base. New traditional procurement in construction led to Advisory Committee (BRAC). The main funding for the common good, and complement one
arrangements for procurement of R&D must adversarial relationships and poor service to mechanisms have been the BRE Framework another’s efforts.
encourage critical mass and centres of expertise clients. Construction is differentiated from Agreement, Partners in Innovation, LINK and –
where appropriate, but must also allow for some much of manufacturing industry by the form recently – a new pilot scheme to capture 3.4 Strategic Forum
adventitious and innovative work on a more its product takes - in terms of its long life and innovation from real time construction projects
Fragmentation of the industry, with its byzantine
flexible, reactive basis. inseparability from the real estate it occupies, called Fast Track.
maze of representative bodies, has made overall
and the time taken to design and construct it. strategic dealings with government problematic.
The BRE Framework arrangement has reduced 3.3 Industry involvement in priority setting
options about where government should procure • The endemic fragmentation is exacerbated by The recently created Strategic Forum, chaired by
R&D in the sector over the last 5 years. There is In recent years the government provided CRISP Sir John Egan, offers a new opportunity of
the defensive stance of the various professional
now an opportunity to refocus government with funding for a small secretariat and a budget bringing together the representative umbrella
institutions which strictly maintain their
support, towards a vision of future excellence in to allow it to commission consultancy studies bodies and the Rethinking Construction
independence, in the process discouraging
R&D procurement that will satisfy government’s in support of its work. CRISP’s remit from innovators, and could have a significant role to
the development of multi disciplinary skills.
various needs as well as safeguarding the health government was to help to define the R&D play in leading the agenda for R&D.
of the construction research base. In doing so, needs of the construction industry, to feed into
there should be a conscious effort to further the DTI/DTLR Programme and to influence other
improve the coupling of academic research to funders. It has succeeded, with limited resource,
the needs of industry, and to increase the to articulate research requirements in several key
capacity of industry to absorb the outputs of areas, and has developed a successful modus
academic research.
3.5 A challenge to government and industry The industry needs to find a way of attracting There is an urgent need to create a career path A supplementary issue is the trend for overseas
and retaining bright people - including the that provides a broad qualification across the students to take a larger proportion of
The lack of a long term research strategy for
widening of its appeal to women and other whole process of design, environmental construction education and research places in
the industry means that the overall framework
under-represented groups. This problem planning, project planning, construction and the UK. This is not a problem for the quality of
within which funding decisions are made tends
is widely recognised – recent reports beyond, to create a cadre of potential leaders for education nor of research. But when overseas
to be disjointed. Some strengthening of
commissioned by the Arup Foundation set out the industry. The final academic qualification for students return home with expertise gained in
horizontal mechanisms across the board,
the issues. The ‘Respect for People’ initiative some would be an engineering doctorate the UK, the supply of high quality potential
including between research funders, is therefore
focuses on wider ‘people’ issues, and includes presently offered by the EPSRC. employees for the UK based industry is inevitably
required. Multiple research funders are not
recruitment, retention and respect as its core But other, more flexible ways of providing reduced.
unique to the construction industry, but the
themes. But all this good work needs to be built such a broad based qualification should also
industry could get a better deal overall by acting Government procurement of research for
on and the momentum sustained. The industry be established. This more generalist career path
more coherently and taking responsibility for its construction has a role to play in helping to
needs to ensure that it is training and retaining would not replace but be in addition to the
own research agenda. With such a fragmented tackle skills shortages in construction research,
the strategic leaders of the future. development of existing specialty skills.
industry (much of it comprising small by providing a more coherent and longer term
It could perhaps be billed as a prestige entry
organisations without the capacity to engage Part of the issue is that the industry is attempting focus for work and allowing more certainty of
for fast path development. Commitment
with strategic research issues) it is for the major to attract its new blood into the same old silos – employment for those undertaking R&D. People
from consultees to this concept seemed strong,
players, and those prepared to innovate, to take taking the problem back to the issues of who are skilled in longer term, strategic research
but real action is now required. The current
the initiative and engage in setting the longer fragmentation and the need for more multi are not always able to shine in a shorter term,
leaders of the industry need to demand a system
term research road map. disciplinary working. This system of silos within more tactical ‘consultancy’ environment,
that provides more broadly qualified people, and
the industry, within the engineering profession although there are of course exceptions to this
support them properly so that the brightest and
4 ENSURING SKILLS FOR THE FUTURE and academia is failing to attract bright young generalisation. However, procurement on a
best have the incentive to seek such
people; a view broadly shared by most of the project by project basis fails to provide the
A key question is whether the industry, and the qualifications.
contributors to this review. It is essential for this security, continuity and critical mass to
research base that supports it, is in a position
problem to be tackled or the industry will 4.2 Research skills encourage longer term work programmes which
to provide the leadership and vision needed
atrophy. The industry must attract people to its help to develop in-depth research skills.
to bring about the next step change in the Graduate and post-graduate skills shortages
ranks who are challenged by the opportunity to
industry’s performance. Clearly the UK has in the industry lead to skills shortages in 4.3 The role of Professional Institutions
make a difference – make a contribution to a
world beating construction businesses. For construction R&D. Again, the key question
strategic vision. The Institute of Management’s The Professional Institutions have historically
example leading UK consulting design and arises – is the construction research base in
recent report ‘Leadership – the challenge for all’ played a role in accrediting professional courses
engineering firms have enjoyed a successful a fit state to tackle the most critical issues
shows that inspiration and strategic thinking for the various construction disciplines (which
period of growth and are world leaders in of the 21st Century? Does it have the right
are rated as the most important attributes of help to dictate the shape of university
several specialist areas. people, the right organisation, the right vision?
leadership by most managers. But so long as departments, and affect the nature of research
the careers on offer in construction are Does it have the right skills? This review has
4.1 Supply of professional skills that is undertaken within them). Each Institution
narrowly based, with limited horizons and found that there are some excellent centres
jealously guards its autonomy. This was
But there are well reported problems. There modest rewards, bright young strategic undertaking research, but that there is also
identified as a barrier to interdisciplinary working
is considerable concern that the supply of thinkers will turn away. room for improvement – the research base
by many of the contributors to the Review.
professional skills required in the production is fragmented, patchy in quality and in size.
It is evident that construction research will,
and maintenance of the built environment For reasons already outlined above it will find
in the future, increasingly need people who
has not matched the changing needs of the it hard to attract people of the right calibre
are comfortable working across disciplinary
sector. Moreover, there has been a dramatic in the future.
boundaries. Professional accreditation needs to
decline in the numbers of new entrants on
This is very serious. Industry does need to move towards fostering and promoting, rather
construction-related degree courses. If the
engage energetically with the R&D agenda. than inhibiting, the development of such skills.
current rates of decline were to continue into
But it must simultaneously tackle the skills
the future, the number of students in the built
issue – bright people are needed to push
environment would rapidly collapse. By 2009
innovation in the industry. The potential lack of
the number of applicants to civil engineering
high calibre personnel being trained to work in
courses would have fallen to 0, while the last
UK construction is the greatest threat to the
applicant to building and construction courses
long-term health of the research base.
would enter university by 2012. So far, the
declining trend line shows little sign of
bottoming out.
Part 2 PART 2
PART 1: BACKGROUND AND EVIDENCE
GOVERNMENT’S ROLE
IN SUPPORTING
CONSTRUCTION R&D
It is beyond the scope of this review to do any The construction research base has well PART TWO of this Report focuses on the role of
more than state that the Institutions must established networks for international exchange government in supporting construction R&D, and
address this issue and provide much better of information. Collaboration in on the four main categories set out below.
mechanisms for enabling inter- and multi- joint projects has been encouraged in the For each, it sets out the main issues faced, the
disciplinary qualifications. In order for this past decade by the creation of new funding current position, and a possible way forward.
to happen, practioners in the industry must mechanisms, notably the Framework It is recognised that some R&D would serve several
demand that the Institutions take action. Programmes of the European Union. BRE and interests. There was already a need for better
This is not to say that the narrower focus universities have been prominent in European horizontal mechanisms, which has become more
that individual institutions bring to their programmes but construction firms (with some important since the split of the old construction
specialisms is not also required – qualifications notable exceptions) have been poorly directorate between DTI and DTLR. Whilst
and research should be undertaken within represented. Those construction companies consideration is from a DTI and DTLR perspective
a framework that allows both breadth (cross- that have been deeply engaged are clear that (as sponsors of this review), the needs of the rest of
discipline) and depth (specialism), depending the technologies that they have developed the public sector – as clients and policy customers –
on circumstances. through participation in European programmes are acknowledged and taken into account.
have brought commercial advantage. But the
5 THE INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION industry in general has not benefited from the
European funding that has passed to universities
The international dimension to research and 4 MAIN CATEGORIES OF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT:
and research centres; as with other R&D
innovation in other countries did not form
engagement, the main benefit comes from
a substantial element of input to this Review –
collaborating and taking part. • R&D to support the government in its role as • R&D to help government fulfil its role as client,
it tended to be raised as an afterthought if
Innovation may be stimulated by awareness of regulator – which is primarily to underpin the on behalf of the public sector as a whole, in
raised at all. Differences in climate, materials
international experience and practice, without Building Regulations, but also includes work to order to derive best possible value for money.
availability, legal frameworks and living patterns
to some extent constrain the international the need for formal research. Awareness of help understand wider issues of safety and health • R&D to help government more generally in its
transfer of construction technologies and advanced practice in other countries has in and around buildings role as policy maker for issues that directly affect,
practices, but much research in other countries developed in some areas; for example, new
• R&D to support government in its role as sponsor but go wider than, the construction industry (for
will be relevant to the UK. Both research bodies approaches towards housing technology have
of the construction industry example energy efficiency and climate change).
and construction firms should therefore be been stimulated by the reports from DTI-assisted
aware of developments elsewhere that could be missions to Japan, North America and Europe. It would also include R&D to react to unforeseen
– to support innovation and competitiveness.
exploited in the UK (or in export markets). Some international firms use their overseas circumstances and emergencies.
Innovation is defined here as ‘successful
operations as sources of technological
exploitation of new ideas leading to profitable
innovation. But generally the UK construction
change’, and includes work to support the broad
sector does not look outside its national
agenda of Sir John Egan’s 1998 report ‘Rethinking
boundaries for new ideas and technologies.
Construction’ and the initiatives that followed it.
Accordingly, one feature in the new Alongside the competitiveness agenda, R&D is
arrangements should be a much stronger effort needed to ensure better exploitation of academic
to tap the world’s investment in research and innovation within the industry.
innovation, through such measures as scrutiny
– tackling issues of strategic importance, and
of technical reports, active collaboration in
international projects, exchanges of staff, stimulating the industry and its stakeholders
fact-finding missions and invitations to leading (including the public sector) to articulate a
international practitioners. The principal centres vision for the future and a research strategy
for construction research should have an explicit to lead it there.
remit to be capable of presenting the best of
the world’s research and practice to their UK
clients and partners. Moreover, research should
be of international standing, for this enables
researchers to appraise the quality and relevance
of outputs from other countries’ programmes,
and programmes should be evaluated from an
international perspective.
PART 2: GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION R&D PART 2: GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING CONSTRUCTION R&D
6 GOVERNMENT’S ROLE IN SUPPORTING 7 GOVERNMENT AS REGULATOR 7.2 Demand for research competencies Introduction of new technologies
CONSTRUCTION R&D and design solutions
The Building Regulations provide performance DTLR’s demand for research competencies
Contributors to the Review thought that Economic considerations, and the extent
standards for the ‘as built’ design of buildings depends on three main factors:
government played a particularly hands on role to which these are influenced by the
with regard to the health, safety, welfare and
in sponsoring and challenging the construction Approved Documents government’s sustainability policy, largely drive
convenience of occupants. They cover new build,
industry to improve. Moreover, the industry was the introduction of new technologies and design
some refurbishment and alteration work, and The scheduling of revisions is set by DTLR and
perceived as weak in putting its own case, even solutions. Demand is expected to increase for
change of use to existing buildings where this endorsed by the Building Regulations Advisory
by its own representatives. research competencies that can assess the
involves modifications to building design. Committee (BRAC) according to Ministerial
performance and limitations of those innovations
The Building Regulations are underpinned by requirements, the pace of technical change and
The four roles set out here – regulation, that impinge on the requirements of the ADs.
a set of Approved Documents providing non- the extent of issues arising. The demand for
sponsorship, client, and policy maker – all Research competencies may emerge in
prescriptive and increasingly performance based research competencies relating to a particular AD
provide good justification for government association with an innovation but independent
design guidance that is open to interpretation tends to be higher prior to and during its
intervention in construction R&D. Government sources of expertise that can make impartial
and encourages the uptake of innovation. revision. Knowledge and understanding of the
acts as guardian of the public interest in ensuring assessments may be more difficult to obtain.
The construction process and post occupancy technical basis of each AD needs to be retained
safety and health in and around buildings
issues are not explicitly covered but actual and this requires continuous maintenance of the
through the Building Regulation system. 7.3 Associated competencies
experience and research in these areas is taken research competencies.
But there is a wider public interest argument.
into account to ensure design standards set by Besides research competencies DTLR require
Virtually all businesses in the country rely on the
the building regulations are appropriate in the Development of new and revised some associated competencies to drive forward
construction industry to provide and maintain codes and standards
broader context. and feed back on regulation change. These
their accommodation, plant and infrastructure,
DTLR needs to influence and respond to the competencies include the drafting of AD
and everyone has experience of construction The Building Regulations Division of DTLR needs
activities of codes and standards development revisions and codes and standards, development
because of where they live, work and play. to call on research competencies to fulfil
committees where these impinge on the of regulatory impact assessments, the provision
Positive Government engagement aiming for requirements which have traditionally been
development of practices and products that are of professional advice on change take up,
improvements in the quality of design and sourced from the BRE. Although BRE is widely
covered by the Building Regulations. Some of presentational and government representation
construction, in the value and sheer enjoyment respected, and has particular strengths in many
this work is done in-house, but much is skills, etc. Whilst such competencies are required
of the built environment and in a more areas relating to Building Regulations, it must
contracted out at present. Research generally, they are normally applied against
sustainable future, serves everyone’s interests. in future win work without any special
competencies are particularly required by DTLR in specific technical issues and therefore need to be
government support or favour. available concurrently with the research
More specifically, Government is the dominant those cross cutting areas that are not well
client of the industry, the public sector represents represented by industry bodies (eg trade competencies.
7.1 DTLR’s needs can be broadly defined
about about 40% of construction’s turnover as follows: associations). European harmonisation work is
7.3 Impartiality
(about £25bn) annually. It is therefore in the creating a high demand in the short to medium
• Develop sound scientific evidence in support
Exchequer’s interest in a narrow sense, as well in term for the research competencies required to DTLR require research competencies that are
of reviews and amendments of the Approved
the wider one described above, to put effort into establish correlation between emerging demonstrably impartial. Those residing in
improving construction. The R&D agenda needs Documents;
European standards and the existing British organisations that have vested interests in the
to support this push for general improvement. • Represent and promote UK interests in the Standards. The current focus is on fire, but work application of the Building Regulations cannot
development of national and international will be needed for all Parts of the Regulations as be used. Trade Associations, Research Centres,
For all these reasons, the Government should
codes and standards referenced in the the relevant new European standards are Universities, etc may have particular interests
promote a strong and vibrant construction
Approved Documents; published. In the longer term the demand for and may undertake commercial research for
research base. SPRU have noted the way that
research competencies is expected to focus on the construction industry and product suppliers.
privatisation and competition has changed
• Assess the performance of new technologies revisions required to address developing The extent to which they will be perceived to
relationships between research bodies – they are
or design solutions to ensure that the technologies. Influence over European interests be impartial needs to be considered on a case
tending to collaborate less with one another
Approved Documents are kept in line with requires the availability of highly experienced by case basis. As a result research competencies
than in the past. Some rebalancing of funding
technological progress. individuals who bring research competencies and may frequently need to be drawn from more
mechanisms to encourage more collaboration
practical experience in industry. than one source to ensure independence
between research providers, as well as the
and objectivity.
already noted need for encouragement of
industry involvement in research is required.
Summary of key issues: 8 GOVERNMENT AS SPONSOR

R&D in support of regulation
Government’s aim as sponsor of the construction
PLANNING sector is the improvement of productivity,
competitiveness and innovation. Sponsorship
• government to identify priorities (SEE ANNEX D)
activities and research support should in the
• government to define need for particular
future be more closely tied into the generic
programmes of work, in consultation with expert
help from the industry (Building Regulations sponsorship activities and models which DTI
7.5 Main Topics
Research Advisory Group - BRRAG) makes available to other industry sectors. The
The Approved Documents, the codes and
new arrangements will provide the additional
standards they reference, and the innovative PROCUREMENT benefit of greater opportunity for learning across
technologies and design solutions that are
• procurement of work in each area needs to allow sectors. Much of what the industry has needed
assessed against the building regulation sufficient critical mass to allow researchers to plan and will continue to need is learning and
requirements cover numerous technical issues longer term for facilities and manpower and create adaptation from other sectors. It is important
and require a very wide range of research centres of excellence – so procurement must be on that the new arrangements for research support
competencies. However there are strong the basis of programmes of work rather than should recognise this. Advanced applied
synergies between the technical issues and individual projects research has its place in construction as in other
hence required research competencies for Rethinking Construction, and in particular
• research base needs to provide the right mix of sectors, but technology transfer and
some ADs. There are three largely distinct Movement for Innovation and Housing Forum
skills, which may require far more networking than management of processes will continue to be
areas addressing: previously. demonstration projects, represents a new model
as, if not more, important in influencing
• Integrity of the building. for driving innovation in the industry.
• Impartiality of research teams must be maintained improved performance.
It is too early to quantify success, but indications
• Operational performance of the building. • excellence from abroad should be utilised where
8.1 Competitiveness and innovation are that performance on demonstration projects
• Occupant interactions with the building. appropriate, perhaps by incorporating overseas
is better than in the industry at large, and there
partnerships Sir John Egan’s report ‘Rethinking Construction’
For each of these areas the specific issues that are certainly positive messages about industry
are expected to drive DTLR’s requirements for • award of work needs to be on the basis of provides the backdrop to much of the DTI policy
involvement and action embedded in the
competition rather than preferred supplier (which support for the construction industry, and –
research competencies over the next 5 years are Movement.
happens at present with BRE), although the awards alongside sustainability – is the major plank of
summarised in ANNEX D . Government has
should be for as long a period as possible within the the DTI part of the construction research Recent work by CRISP on behalf of Rethinking
defined the capabilities and expertise to which it
constraints of government spending rules. portfolio. Most of the priority areas for research Construction has highlighted some interesting
needs access and should publish the terms for
One model could be a 2 stage bidding process: under Partners in Innovation relate very closely to outcomes from demonstration projects. These
contracts for their provision to which bids will be
the first responding to a request from government the Egan agenda and to sustainability. include that taking part is generally perceived
invited from any independent research provider.
for provision of a programme to tackle a particular as the greatest benefit. Results and outcomes,
It should be noted that it is unlikely that all the Following publication of ‘Rethinking
problem/area of work; the second a more honed when written down, are often distrusted.
skills and resources needed to satisfy a particular Construction’, the government set up a
proposal responding to a refined tender request With a few notable exceptions, knowledge
requirement will be physically located together – ministerial steering group to oversee the
from government which would take into account transfer does not tend to ‘ripple’ out from
it should not be necessary. It is accepted that a implementation of the Report through four
the ideas put forward in stage 1 members of project teams to their companies
‘networked’ arrangement will often satisfy the principle working groups – the Central
• Some competition should be maintained or other organisations. CRISP recommends
requirement so long as there is a prime Government Task Force, the Local Government
throughout– government should not create that more time and effort needs to be expended
contractor. Task Force, the Movement for Innovation and
monopoly providers on learning the lessons from demonstration
the Housing Forum. These initiatives have
7.6 International projects, that rigorous validation of benefits
MONITORING since come together under the banner
is crucial and that organisations need to
Where appropriate research is commissioned to • quality control and ongoing impact assessment will ‘Rethinking Construction’.
consciously develop a ‘learning culture’.
consider experience from overseas, and how it be required – regular review needs to be built in
Rethinking Construction has commissioned
might be utilised in the UK. Such research is • management should be rigorous, advised by an further work designed to improve both the
usually commissioned as part of a review of a expert steering group
demonstration process and demonstration
particular Part of the Building Regulations.
EVALUATION project outcomes.
DTLR will be in the lead in taking forward new • evaluation should be undertaken regularly,
arrangements for supporting public interest focused on the desired outcomes of the
research relating to regulatory responsibility, Regulation, and how the underpinning
although there will need to be close cooperation research contributed to its original remit
with those in DTI responsible for sponsorship
of construction.
8.2 Standards 8.7 Existing mechanisms for

strategic thinking.
The industry lacks robust arrangements to Issues need to be prioritised in a way that allows
develop industry standards - agreements programmes of research work to be defined to There are some existing mechanisms to tackle
between competing companies to adopt a tackle them. Project by project funding is unlikely strategic and longer term issues for the industry,
standard approach for the benefit everyone. to provide sufficient focus or critical mass to but on the whole it has to be said that the
One important example cited during the Review make real inroads into the most important construction industry has not taken to heart
was the need for standards to define interfaces problems facing the sector, although the the need for longer term and strategic thinking.
between prefabricated modules and Department should not rule out procuring The energy, resources and intellectual capacity
components. Such standards provide economy individual projects to fill particular gaps or take devoted to consideration of construction’s
of scale for suppliers and act as powerful advantage of particularly innovative thinking. future are inadequate.
productivity drivers. They contribute to Defining research problems into larger The Strategic Forum has been established as a
institutional learning. There are many areas programmes would have the additional representative forum for the industry, and
where industry standards could make a advantage of allowing enough ‘critical mass’ although its initial aim is to drive forward the
significant contribution. The implementation of for research contractors to bring together 8.5 Emphasis Rethinking Construction agenda, it is well placed
some of the Egan recommendations will depend integrated, multi disciplinary teams and ensure to widen its remit to tackle longer term issues.
on the establishment of ‘standards’. that all the various stakeholders within the Government should invest where the potential
programme are well informed about progress. for real world impact and added value is The recent Foresight exercise included a specific
Generally, this is an engineering issue and greatest. It should place emphasis on report on the future needs of construction, but
Industrial engagement and championship is
professional engineering institutions can play an embedding innovation and lessons learned by concentrating on the needs of the industry
particularly important, and industry collaborators
important role in bringing all the right parties from research into the way companies work. itself, its focus was on operational effectiveness
must be prepared to contribute at least half
together on neutral territory. In other industries, Some refocusing of research funding is rather than wider vision and strategy. The
of the resource needed to fund programmes
the Internet has been used effectively to link needed, perhaps using two overlapping generic Foresight process itself will now be
of work.
committee members to speed the convergence headings: refocused onto exploitation of new technologies
of opinion. This is an important competitiveness 8.4 Management rather than sector specific work, so Foresight will
issue where some facilitation by government • R&D to support the leading industrial
no longer provide a tailored route for strategic
might be appropriate, but where real progress In recent years DTI and DTLR (when together players to develop and drive innovation
thinking for construction.
will only be made when the major industry as the former DETR) employed consultants further into their own, and their supply
players get together and force the issue through, to help them run the construction research chains’, businesses. The current construction research portfolio
in partnership with their major suppliers and in programme. These research management contains some longer term work - for example
contractors (RMCs) were needed to help manage • advice and help to the rest of the industry in the field of sustainable construction – which
consultation with their major clients – and when
the large and varied portfolio of projects under and its stakeholders – aimed at embedding helped to inform the report ‘Building a better
they are jointly prepared to pay for R&D to help
both BRE Framework arrangements and the innovative ideas in order to improve the quality, quality of life’ and other initiatives. Sustainability
make it happen.
Partners in Innovation scheme. Over the last 4 value, customer focus, and sustainability of UK in its broadest sense is given priority - it is the
8.3 Well-founded R&D depends on analysis years, a total of 1064 projects were let across the construction as a whole. main driver of the current construction research
of the issues whole DETR portfolio, managed under business programme - but it should be more coherently
8.6 Strategic longer term vision for
An important finding of this Review is that plans and latterly themes. The key RMC articulated and broken down into a clear
the industry
Government procurement of research in support contribution to date has been in bringing framework to clarify the various strands of
additional resource, beyond that available in the Construction has a key role to play in society in work (what is already being done and where,
of competitiveness must be tied more clearly to
departments, to bear on management of providing a better built environment, but has what more is needed) and their contribution
an analysis of the problems facing the sector,
projects: milestones, steering group been poor at convincing itself and other to the overall aims of economic, environmental
which will be informed by dialogue with the
arrangements, and a better focus on exploitation stakeholders that this is so. If it is to address the and social sustainability. Sustainability is by
industry leading to consensus on key issues and
and dissemination. In the future, any RMC skills crisis and attract young people it needs to definition customer/society centric, and provides
priorities. A firmly based analysis of the issues
contribution will need to take a more strategic be seen as central to a better quality of life for the construction industry with an opportunity to
must be made in order to provide justification for
role in helping to define and oversee everyone, and concerned with a sustainable create a vision with which society and particularly
R&D programmes and ensure industry relevance.
programmes of work, ensuring strong quality future. It needs to develop its vision, get bright young people could identify.
Industry leaders must play their part in defining
control and ongoing relevance. widespread buy in and communicate it to all
the issues.
stakeholders. As already noted, a proper analysis
A key aim should be to disseminate the
of the longer term issues facing the industry
knowledge gained from the programme in a way
(from which programmes of research can be
that maximises its potential benefit by
articulated) is essential. The research agenda
influencing the way that companies behave.
needs to support this vision, and government
should facilitate it as part of its sponsorship role.
8.8 The way ahead Summary of key issues: PROCUREMENT

R&D in support of sponsorship
It is critically important that a better mechanism • Procurement of work needs to offer sufficient
be developed for defining the industry’s long critical mass to allow researchers to plan longer
PLANNING
term research needs, embedded within a process term for facilities and manpower, so should offer
for wider strategy setting. It is also critically • Industry to set the forward research agenda in a programme of work rather than individual
important that there is clarity between partnership with government. A road map for project by project funding. But arrangements
government funding responsibility, and issues research needed to tackle the most important should be flexible enough to allow one-off pieces
where industry itself should pay. issues. Ensure that this fits into an overall strategic of work to address adventitious and tactical issues,
policy framework for construction competitiveness or to encourage particularly innovative thinking.
Procurement of longer term research and the
setting of a strategic framework are the weakest and innovation
As well as helping to set the forward research • A model of procurement that encourages better
links in the current government R&D agenda, new arrangements must include raising • Set targets with measurable outcomes coupling between universities, IROs, intermediaries
procurement arrangements, but there are awareness of futures issues within the industry, and industry should be developed
• For research aimed a driving innovation, ensure
many building blocks already in place that by engagement with the media, by publishing real championship of the research and innovation • The research base needs to provide industry and
could be mobilised and focused on future and presenting at workshops and conferences, within the industry, and a real willingness to government with the right mix of skills, which may
strategy. The workshop held on 4 December and by utilising existing industry networks engage – if it is not there, don’t fund. require far more networking than previously.
as part of this Review confirmed the importance and delivery mechanisms. This would, of
of an industry-led strategic framework to drive • Advisory and best practice work should make In particular it will be important to ensure that the
course, include networks and institutions
the R&D agenda. It also confirmed the view that better use of DTI’s generic business support social science dimension is integrated properly into
beyond the UK.
this would only happen if there was greater mechanisms adapted where necessary for construction thinking.
commitment on the part of industry leaders An R&D agenda derived from a strategic
construction, and of national and regional • Award of work needs to be on the basis of
to a strategic vision for the industry and its framework would allow industry leaders to
intermediaries and networks, in order to target competition. Industry should contribute at least
place in society, leading to real demand for engage with all research funders, not just
audiences more explicitly and gain buy in from half of the cost of research in support of its own
better articulation of the R&D agenda. DTI/DTLR, and enable them to better prioritise
those in the wider industry that are willing to competitiveness agenda
their own investment in R&D as well as help
A representative industry body needs to provide engage, learn, and move forward
define public funding. This is one reason why • Competition should be maintained –
strategic vision and leadership. Upstream the the initiative needs to be owned and driven by • Much more emphasis needs to be placed on complementary streams of work would
industry should engage with those of influence the industry, not by one government dissemination of outputs and sharing of knowledge, strengthen overall quality.
over the wider built environment, such as CABE, department. which should be planned for throughout projects.
to clarify the contributions construction needs MONITORING
If researchers are incapable of promoting their own
to make towards the overall quality of life A vision of the future, with a research strategy to
work, intermediaries and other specialist routes • Quality control and ongoing impact assessment
agenda. Downstream, there should be a strong signpost future gaps in knowledge in a coherent
should be used instead will be required – regular review needs to be
organisation providing a supporting role and way, is an essential component in improving the
built in, including more interaction between
an R&D focus. productivity and profit of UK construction, and • Excellence from abroad should be planned for,
researchers working on complementary issues
increasing the likelihood of the industry being perhaps by incorporating overseas partnerships.
Current input to the Strategic Forum and CRISP, able to make a positive contribution to society as • Management should be rigorous, advised by an
There is scope for international co-funding of
apart from the limited studies commissioned by a whole over the coming years. Government can expert steering group
networks and for pump priming funding to
CRISP, relies on voluntary effort. It seems unlikely help to facilitate this, but it is the industry that build consortia • New ways of ensuring quality and relevance
that the strategic thinking that construction needs to own it, participate at appropriate levels,
needs can be undertaken on this basis within a • Research management contractors to help should be developed, perhaps using independent
and pay its share of the cost.
realistic timescale. government define programmes of work, ‘external auditors’ drawn from the industry.
DTI will be in the lead in taking forward new and projects within them, to ensure synergy
EVALUATION
arrangements for procuring R&D in support of its and cross fertilisation
role as sponsor. This will need to be put in the • There should be a concerted emphasis on
context of overall government policy aims for evaluation of programmes of work, including
construction, and DTI’s own overriding strategy real world impact studies.
for increasing productivity in the economy as a
whole.
9 GOVERNMENT AS CLIENT 10 GOVERNMENT AS POLICY MAKER
It has already been stated that the largest single It is clear from earlier sections of this report that
beneficiary of a radically improved construction the construction industry has a major
industry would be the public sector – the part to play in improving the wider built
potential savings are significant. Current environment and all stakeholders’ experience of
arrangements do not sufficiently acknowledge it. Research will be required to support wider
that this is the case. The DTI/DTLR and Research government policies and policy customers (for
Council programmes have tackled the generic example housing, planning, environment), where
competitiveness and regulation agendas. Public the construction industry plays a supporting
sector clients have tended to focus their own
rather than starring role.
research efforts narrowly in support of their own
operational needs. But with notable exceptions There is a significant amount of coordination
such as the Ministry of Defence’s sponsorship of required to ensure that the work undertaken in
Summary of key issues:
the ‘Building Down Barriers’ project, they have the construction research programme
R&D in support of government as client
tended not to engage with the wider complements and builds upon work underway in
construction research agenda, which aims for PLANNING other government research programmes. There
comprehensive improvement across the industry. are already good examples of how this might • Principal responsibility for promoting energy
• government clients to help identify priorities
work, set out below. In each case there has been efficiency lies with the Department for
For these improvements to be achieved
• government to define need for particular a conscious decision by funders to pool resource Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).
government clients need themselves to become
programmes of work, in consultation with expert or expertise in order to gain added benefit from The Carbon Trust has been set up to promote
actively engaged in research collaboration so as
help from government clients and the industry research that has relevance across funding low carbon technologies. DTLR has
to embed learning and innovation within their
organisations. This implies a more substantial • outputs targeted at public sector clients, but boundaries. It would be advantageous to responsibility for Part L of the Building
engagement and expenditure on generic where appropriate utilised for wider client identify further cross cutting work, which could Regulations which is concerned with
construction research than hitherto. benefit – both working with the best clients to be jointly commissioned, and perhaps managed conservation of energy. And DTI has
move the agenda forward, and providing targeted as a joint programme with some shared funding. responsibility both for renewable energy
Future arrangements should encourage better
advice and support to less experienced and This will be more important in the future, with and for construction sponsorship. All these
horizontal mechanisms to ensure that public
occasional public sector clients further fragmentation of the funding streams separate responsibilities give rise to
sector clients are able to benefit fully from the
because of recent machinery of government requirements for research. Departments
opportunities to learn from and participate in PROCUREMENT
changes : have agreed arrangements to ensure
construction related research. DTI has an
• Procurement should be done in partnership sensible coordination, with the Carbon Trust
opportunity to facilitate innovation, perhaps by • DTI and DTLR have funded a study to produce
between DTI and the Office of Government taking the lead.
working with government clients to identify guidance on methods of construction and
Commerce, bringing in public sector clients as
opportunities where they, as clients,can take a building maintenance to increase a property’s • In another example, the Health and Safety
collaborators (and, where appropriate as
lead in developing or demonstrating new resistance to the effects of flooding. Funding Executive (HSE) and DTI are co-funding a
co-funders) on particular projects
generic process improvement and sustainability also came from the Scottish Executive, the priority area for collaborative research scheme
techniques and technologies. MONITORING National Assembly for Wales, the Environment on ‘designing for safe construction’ under
New forms of public sector contracting, such as • Management should be rigorous, advised by an Agency, House Builders Federation, National Partners in Innovation 2001.
the private finance initiative (PFI), are already expert steering group including government House Building Council and the Association
Many Government policy issues have a
changing the climate within which decisions client representatives of British Insurers.
construction dimension. A better
about procurement are made and managed, Non-financial contributions were also made
EVALUATION acknowledgement of this is needed.
encouraging a longer term perspective which by three research organisations: BRE, CIRIA
DTI should actively promote sensible and
takes into account the whole life of a built asset. • Evaluation should be undertaken regularly, and HR Wallingford.
tailored arrangements where appropriate,
There is evidence that the public sector is taking into account the needs of public sector
building on existing initiatives and consciously
realising better value for money as a result. clients and quantifying the benefit of engagement
aiming for collaboration. Other Departments
Participating companies should also be able to in research projects
should be made aware of the opportunities
become more profitable. This provides an
for policy makers to get the best possible
opportunity for companies to invest some of
value and insight from construction R&D
this additional profit margin in R&D and longer
term thinking. work in its widest sense.
PART 3
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
11 CONCLUSIONS AND There is also a need for the industry and its Several elements must be in place to satisfy • Helping industry to create a strategic vision
RECOMMENDATIONS stakeholders to look ahead, with a more the strategic needs of government and the for itself, with government contributing as
strategic vision for the future. If the industry is industry. There should be a reassessment of guardian of the public interest and major
11.1 Investment
to play its part in securing a sustainable built construction’s place in the wider quality of life client of the industry. The strategy would
Tony Blair, in his foreword to the report environment that improves the quality of life agenda, and agreement between key provide a framework for future planning
‘Better Public Buildings’, stresses the need in the UK, it needs to be profitable and stakeholders about the contribution it can and investment in education and skills,
for the UK to raise its game in the provision innovative. The aim is for a ‘virtuous circle’ make to improving the built environment for in capital infrastructure and in R&D.
of public buildings and infrastructure. beginning with more and better focused R&D everyone. The industry itself needs to
• Providing pump priming funding to
Delivery of the Government’s huge investment, allowing more innovation, develop a strategic vision to match this
facilitate industry setting a prioritised
programme of infrastructure investment leading to better profitability, and providing aspiration, which would have to be driven
agenda for the R&D needed to achieve
requires an effective construction industry the additional capacity to invest in more R&D. from the top. Such a vision must not be
industry’s strategic aims.
delivering good value for money. The industry needs help to undertake the sterile, monolithic, or inward looking – it
This represents an enormous opportunity more strategic thinking required if is this is to would probably involve an ongoing process of 11.3 Mechanisms for change
for the UK construction sector. It is in happen, and government should facilitate it strategic thinking that would tackle key issues
The 3-pronged arrangement already
government’s interest both as client and and join in as the major client of the industry. in a systematic and comprehensive manner.
described – ‘mission statement’, ‘industry
as guardian of the wider public interest to And in order to deliver this vision for the
RECOMMENDATION strategy’, and ‘R&D priorities’ – is a
encourage and help the construction industry future, priorities for R&D would need to be
straightforward concept. But making it work
to improve. The Review has concluded that The Review concludes that government clearly articulated, and where appropriate
will need intellectual focus, enthusiasm and
government as a whole has not taken enough as a whole should reconsider its level of earmarked for government support.
commitment from the construction
account of this in determining support for investment in R&D to support improvement in
The Review concludes that long term research community. Input to this review suggests that
construction research in the past. the construction industry. It concludes that
planning should be derived from a strategic these will not be lacking.
the available resources for construction R&D
Public investment in construction research framework of the issues facing the
are the minimum that the sector deserves, The Review concludes that the Strategic
seems to be inadequate when compared to construction industry. The emphasis should
bearing in mind its size and importance. It Forum should have a pivotal role in setting
the size and importance of the sector and its be on key competitiveness and productivity
recommends that government should refocus industry strategic vision and key issues
contribution to the UK’s economic, social and issues and their relationship to achieving
existing resources towards more, better needing action. This would be an ongoing,
environmental wellbeing. There is no reason sustainability. Such plans should address
targeted and better utilised work on constantly developing activity. The Strategic
to think that construction is any different to the well documented barriers to longer term
improving the productivity of the industry and Forum will need help and intellectual input
manufacturing industry when considering the health of the industry and its research base,
improving clientship (with particular focus on from those best placed in the industry and
potential benefit from better use of R&D. and facilitate more coordinated action to
gaining better value for money for the public research community to provide rigour and
There is clear and well documented evidence overcome them.
purse), and on strategic longer term issues. analysis of strategic problems and potential
of the huge scope for improvement in the
In addition, the new vision for construction solutions.
way the industry organises its processes and 11.2 Strategic Vision and its contribution to the wider quality of life
serves its customers. The public sector spends The Review therefore also concludes that a
Construction has a key role to play in society must be publicised and debated beyond the
about £25bn every year on procurement from dynamic organisation is needed to provide
in providing a better built environment. traditional construction research base. Ideas
the construction industry. A relatively small the engine room of strategic thinking for the
However, construction is not perceived as from other industries and from overseas must
upfront investment in well targeted research industry, the intellectual input required by the
socially important. It is perceived as dirty, be drawn in and applied to UK situations.
should yield very substantial benefit to the Strategic Forum, and a hub for prioritising
public purse. dangerous and old fashioned. If it is to R&D. This organisation would need to
RECOMMENDATION
address the skills crisis and attract young develop and maintain a high profile within
people it needs to be seen as central to a The Review concludes that several steps are
the industry and beyond, to engage
better quality of life for everyone, and needed before the construction industry can
stakeholders in debate about future priorities
concerned with a sustainable future. play its full part in a more sustainable future.
and to raise the profile of the contribution the
It needs to develop its vision, get widespread It recommends that government should help
industry can make to creating a better and
buy in and communicate it to all stakeholders. facilitate longer term strategic thinking by:
more sustainable built environment. It would
The research agenda needs to support this • Facilitating a mission statement to be require a genuine mandate from the industry
vision, and government should facilitate it agreed between influential agencies about in order to set priorities for government and
as part of its sponsorship role. construction’s contribution to the wider industry research programmes.
world and the quality of life agenda.
PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PART 3: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The organisation would need several full time, RECOMMENDATION – facilitate a major conference to raise
well resourced individuals with the capacity to the profile of the strategic agenda for
The Review recommends the following
inject greater urgency, wider perspective, and construction, to include participation from
mechanisms for change:
more comprehensive consideration into the key stakeholders from the UK and overseas.
industry’s strategic and R&D thinking. Some • The Strategic Forum should take the lead in
– commission detailed and scoping studies
pump priming resource for this could be engaging with key leaders in the industry of important topics, which should be
provided by government, but it would need and the built environment, to agree a widely and imaginatively publicised.
to be funded by the industry itself within 5 mission statement for construction’s place subject to regular audit by outside teams of
– recommend prioritisation of government’s
years, probably on a subscription basis. in the wider quality of life agenda and independent experts. Government should be
collaborative funding for programmes
ensure that it is driven through the industry much more ready to terminate research which
The Review concludes that CRISP as currently to improve industry competitiveness,
from the top down. Government should productivity and sustainability. is not progressing satisfactorily.
constituted is not geared up to perform the
help to facilitate and publicise this.
new, strategic thinking role now envisaged, – consider establishment of a group of The Review concludes that there should be
although it could provide a nucleus for such • The Strategic Forum should take the pivotal industry and research staff who will much greater effort on follow through and
an organisation, particularly for R&D thinking. role in setting industry strategic vision and undertake work on strategic and research take up of R&D, with robust requirements
The way in which the new organisation key issues needing action. This would be issues, and distill knowledge and views built into the programmes. There should be
should be established and resourced is a an ongoing, constantly developing activity. from experts within the industry and its better measurement of the extent to which
The Forum will need to be able to client base, which would inform and research funded by government is taken up
matter for the Strategic Forum to consider in
commission work in support of this role. support the work of the Strategic Forum, and utilised by the industry.
collaboration with Government.
It seems likely that a dedicated R&D and help them to stimulate debate
The new organisation should find a way RECOMMENDATION
organisation would be required – building more widely.
to get the best from the many expert On commissioning of research, the Review
on the foundations laid by CRISP.
stakeholders who are far sighted, enthusiastic 11.4 Commissioning research
recommends the following broad approach
and knowledgeable about the issues, and • The Strategic Forum needs to consider (but see also recommendations below tied
The Review concludes that the government
feed their views into the whole. This could what arrangements should be established could gain more impact from its research more firmly to specific government roles):
involve invoking formal relationships between and how they will be resourced, including funding if it commissioned work under longer • government should commission longer
industry networks and clubs, with the latter the role the new CRISP should play, in term programmes reflecting critical issues, term programmes of work, on merit,
feeding in recommendations and ideas for order to: identified using a robust strategic planning avoiding creating monopoly suppliers.
areas where they have particular expertise. – provide intellectual rigour to underpin framework. This would ensure that longer
• programmes must encourage collaboration
Government could help industry networks and develop strategic thinking. term issues were not sidelined by the
and networking, and ensure direct
and clubs to play a more concerted part in – provide the focal point for reviewing and perceived potential for short term gain –
relevance to industry needs – where
defining and acting upon the elements of planning of strategic R&D priorities. programmes would need to incorporate both
possible industry leadership should be
the research agenda which they think are ‘quick wins’ and a longer term perspective.
– provide coordination to ensure that the secured.
particularly important, and to which they are Work should only be commissioned on a
work of other stakeholders (including • government should ensure ongoing quality
prepared to commit significant resources of project by project basis where unanticipated
networks and clubs) is properly taken and relevance by instituting peer review
their own. problems had emerged or if the work was by
into account and feeds into the overall and audit by independent experts, as well
nature adventitious.
strategy and R&D priority setting. as robust management of programmes.
– obtain a mandate from the industry for The Review concludes that such programmes
• government should demand more evidence
R&D priorities – the review suggests that should involve industry, academics and
of take up and championship of research as
the Strategic Forum should be asked intermediate organisations and encourage
it is underway, and put more resource into
formally to agree to an Annual R&D collaboration and networking. Work should
disseminating outputs, evaluating impact,
Plan submitted to it by the new CRISP. be procured on merit – Government should
and assessing return on government
not create monopoly providers of research.
– ensure that R&D issues are widely investment.
Programmes of research should be managed
publicised throughout the industry, • government should ensure that research
in a way which ensures high quality work of
by stimulating debate in the construction undertaken takes account of, and taps
direct relevance to industry. They should be
press, engaging in conference, seminar into, relevant international expertise.
and network discussion, and seeking
• Government should be much more
views from across the industry and ready to terminate research which is
beyond. not progressing satisfactorily.
11.5 Government focus The Review has concluded that there is industry research aimed at improving client longer term perspective offers the chance for
willingness on all sides to contribute to and supply side performance. innovative practices to bring them greater
As noted earlier, it has been important to
improved arrangements to the way research • progressively withdraw funding support profitability. This Report has already talked
understand the various motivations for
in support of the construction industry is from areas that do not support strategically about the ‘virtuous circle’ of R&D and
government intervention in construction,
handled. And also that the industry should focused competitiveness issues and longer increasing profitability. These companies
and support for construction research.
take greater responsibility for defining and term strategic development. should be challenged to increase their
All stakeholders need to understand
funding the research needed to support its investment in R&D, and get themselves
government’s role, and rationale for funding. • take account of the summary of key issues
future competitiveness, including making onto the circle.
It is clear that government, as guardian of set out on page 25 of this report specifically
better use of the infrastructure of its relating to procurement of research in
the public interest and major client of the RECOMMENDATION
Professional Institutions. Government should support of government’s role as sponsor.
industry, has an interest in funding research:
target collaborative funding programmes The Review recommends that DTI should
• as ‘regulator’ to provide scientific
carefully and selectively at the key 11.5.3 Client work with OGC and the Government
underpinning to the building regulations;
competitiveness issues including longer term Construction Clients’ Panel (GCCP) to look at
The Review concludes that the benefits of
• as ‘sponsor’ to increase productivity of the strategic development. These will be public sector client R&D needs, with the aim
construction research should be more widely
industry by supporting innovation and of improving innovation in government
identified as part of the process of strategic recognised across Government, and that
competitiveness, and encourage strategic clientship overall by encouraging public sector
thinking. Outside these areas Government public sector clients have a lot to gain from
thinking; clients to support and engage in construction
should progressively withdraw funding engaging more proactively with the DTI’s
• as ‘client’ to achieve best value for the support, leaving shorter term knowledge R&D programmes.
generic construction research programme.
public purse, and transfer and research on incremental In particular, the Review recommends that DTI
Government clients have a responsibility to
• as ‘policy maker’, where improvements in improvements to be funded by the industry. and OGC should collaborate to pilot several
reflect the needs of their end users. They
construction contribute to the wider policy new projects with public sector clients –
RECOMMENDATION have responsibility for a large variety of public
agenda. identifying particular opportunities where
buildings and infrastructure – for example
The Review recommends that government’s R&D input could help clarify client need,
11.5.1 Regulator schools and colleges, hospitals and health
role in relation to its responsibilities as refine client behaviour, and increase value to
centres, military installations, prisons, courts,
For regulation, the review concludes that sponsor should: the end user. DTI collaborative R&D funding
roads, plus less specialised buildings such as
government should fully fund long term and input from industry partners could act as
• help to facilitate the industry’s own offices and accommodation. Underlying R&D
programmes of work to support the building a catalyst for innovation where the lessons
research agenda by supporting the new to optimise the performance of these
regulations, which should be determined by learned were generic and could be
arrangements for R&D priority setting buildings and how they should be procured
government in consultation with BRAC, disseminated more widely. Engagement with
described above, which would focus and managed is a matter for individual
BRRAG and other stakeholders. R&D is a powerful way to embed innovative
on longer term and strategic research government clients.
behaviour into the client side, providing a
RECOMMENDATION priorities related to sustainability, But there are wider gains to be made. DTI strong incentive for the public sector client’s
competitiveness, productivity, and should work with the Office of Government involvement. Such engagement would also
It recommends that the blueprint provided in value to clients. Commerce (OGC) and the Government provide a practical demonstration of
this report forms the basis of the R&D
• provide pump priming funding to help Construction Clients Panel (GCCP) to government leadership in promoting
procurement strategy, taking into account the collectively identify the major problems
other research clubs and networks construction innovation.
summary of key issues set out on page 20 facing clients across the public sector. The
provide better focus for nearer market, Generic issues would include process and
relating to the procurement of research in aim would be to unlock innovation in the
incremental research. product improvement – topics such as
support of government’s role as regulator construction industry through more
• challenge the Professional Institutions to prefabrication, sustainability and good
demanding and innovative clientship,
11.5.2 Sponsor institute arrangements for collaborative design. One specific area to examine is the
focusing on generic process and product
consideration of key near market scope for prefabricated solutions, particularly
The Review has concluded that government’s improvement issues, such as prefabrication,
competitiveness issues such as setting where the need is for a large number of
current support for other construction sustainability and good design.
of industry standards. similar facilities, even though these may be
research is in some cases spread too thinly.
One approach would be to work with for formally independent clients within a
It needs to be refocused to where the • target collaborative funding programmes
selected government clients, using the policy area.
potential for real world impact and added at the key competitiveness issues including
DTI R&D Programme to lever in extra
value is greatest, placing emphasis on longer term strategic development Identification of client specific research needs
resource where they were tackling these
embedding innovation and lessons learned (as identified via the new arrangements should have regard to the summary of key
generic issues.
for strategic thinking), with greater issues set out on page 26 of this Report,
into the way companies work.
involvement of government clients in Companies engaged in PFI are entering a relating to procurement of R&D in support
new phase, where greater stability and a of government’s role as client.
11.6 Responding to unforeseen events 11.8 Construction research base structure This work will be of wide interest to the
The Review concludes that refocusing of industry at large, and if it is to have real
One of the remits of this Review was to
priorities will mean less government demand impact needs to be embedded in the
define how Government can best ensure the
for some of the more traditional construction practices of companies across the country.
necessary competences are available which
research competencies. There will be some Intermediaries play a crucial role in translating
may be needed to respond to an emergency.
transition from the traditional areas of and helping industry to use the knowledge
The example often quoted is that of the
conventional materials research to newer developed through basic and applied
discovery of the thaumasite form of sulphate research. BRE and the research associations
fields looking at process, management and
attack on the foundations of certain are extremely well placed to perform this
behavioural aspects. As government
motorway overbridges. Without swift action Construction must ensure that it has “knowledge pump” role for construction.
support becomes more focused on key
reliant on the expertise of BRE there might strategic, broad thinkers in its ranks for competitiveness issues, traditional research The review recommends that this
have been a threat of closure to part of the the future. organisations will need to pool resources and intermediary role should include, as a specific
country’s motorway network because of the work more closely with one another in order
RECOMMENDATION remit, a more targeted and tailored approach
potential threat to the safety of concrete to thrive financially and be able to attract the to providing industry practioners with the
bridges. It is impossible to anticipate what The Review recommends several strategies best talent. The coming together of research best information and guidance on
the next national emergency of this sort that Government should employ to help organisations could provide the basis for a international research and technological
might be. For this reason government cannot ensure high quality research: new highly regarded centre for construction developments.
keep standing research teams ‘just in case’. knowledge which would be able attract
• help to provide excitement for researchers The Review recommends that government
bright graduates as part of a recognised
RECOMMENDATION by defining programmes of work in terms funding should aim to encourage
career step in the industry.
of quality of life issues and sustainability, collaboration with excellent research
The Review therefore recommends that the
rather than traditional rather narrow In the future it seems likely that more of the organisations with relevant expertise
government’s strategy should be to procure
construction and engineering problems. research that government funds will find a from outside construction.
all research on merit, looking for world class natural home in university departments, in
• demand multi disciplinary integrated
expertise across the board and collaborating collaboration with industry, because of its
teams for research programmes where 11.9 Increasing the capacity of firms
closely with the best in field, so that the longer term strategic nature. Expertise from
appropriate, in particular ensuring the to innovate
overall health of the research base is strong outside construction, and from overseas will
integration of the social science dimension Innovation is profitable change, affecting the
enough to enable it to react positively when also come more into play.
and the exploitation of international bottom line. There are broadly three sorts of
particular problems arise.
expertise. RECOMMENDATION firms – those with well developed innovation
11.7 Skills and recruitment of the brightest • encourage centres of excellence, and capacity, those willing to engage but unsure
and best The Review recommends that Government
provide certainty of work in longer term of how to do it, and those who will never do
should explore ways of encouraging a further
The skills crisis facing construction and other programmes to allow research centres to so. Government needs strategies for each.
coming together of the five construction
parts of the engineering and manufacturing plan manpower and resources. research associations (‘Co-Construct’). They Government should encourage more
economy are well documented and are set • demand more people interchange between might for example consider moving their construction companies to use the Teaching
out in some detail in the earlier sections of industry and academe, proactively operations to one single site, allowing them Company Scheme (TCS), which has been
this report and its annexes. Procurement managed to ensure proper incentives to pool resources and share common services. successful in promoting diffusion of academic
policies for R&D cannot solve these problems. for secondees. There may be other research organisations learning into industry.
But they should not exercerbate skills and that would also welcome this approach and
• help to facilitate the development of a high RECOMMENDATION
recruitment problems in the industry and could join them. This would enable all of
profile generalist construction qualification
the research community, and should where them to provide a more comprehensive The Review recommends a mixed strategy to
which will attract the best young talent
possible improve the attraction of service both to their members and to encourage greater capacity for take up of
interested in a career in construction.
construction research to the brightest government. innovation in construction:
Ideally industry leaders should lobby for
and best researchers. The Review also recommends that the • help the best innovators to keep in
accreditation from all the main Professional
The silo mentality within the industry is a key Institutions. Enlightened universities would traditional construction research base – the forefront internationally and learn from
problem, exacerbated by the stance of the sponsor such a qualification, and industry BRE, Co-Construct and the other smaller other industries and overseas, and
Professional Institutions. There is a need for would need to reward the individuals research associations – should further document and demonstrate the benefits.
enhance their activity as intermediaries • help potential innovators to learn from the
more interdisciplinary working in the industry, involved with a fast path career structure
between academic research and industry. best in construction by providing ‘how to
which the Institutions could tackle by a more and enhanced salary.
Government and industry will procure long innovate’ guidance.
concerted effort to promote interdisciplinary
term strategic thinking and work focused on
skills through their accreditation procedures. • encourage take up of TCS in construction.
key parts of the competitiveness agenda.
Annex A
TERMS OF REFERENCE
BACKGROUND d To make recommendations about the level and

distribution of continuing support which
The Government currently spends around £23m per
Construction Directorate should provide to
year in commissioning construction-related research
support key competencies nationally;
and supporting innovation. The aims of this
expenditure are to underpin the development of e To make such other recommendations as are
regulation and ensure safety and health in buildings relevant to the aims of this study.
and to support the sustainability and
competitiveness of the UK construction industry.
REQUIREMENTS
In undertaking the review there will be a need to:
AIMS OF THE STUDY
• develop a clear understanding of government
Currently around half of this expenditure is with
requirements for research capabilities to support
BRE – the majority in projects funded under the
the development and review of regulation;
terms of the Framework Agreement that was put
in place on privatisation in 1997. With the ending of • understand the circumstances in which
the BRE Framework Agreement in March 2002, government may have to respond quickly to
the DETR will no longer be obliged to offer a concerns about construction-related threats to
minimum value of work each year to BRE. This the safety and health of the public or to protect
provides the opportunity to review the construction the interests of the consumer;
research competencies and facilities, which
• understand the areas in which research
government needs to support, and to consider the
competence may be needed to support the
processes by which priorities and research contracts
overall competitiveness of UK construction both
are established.
at home and overseas;
• understand where competencies are unlikely to
STUDY OBJECTIVES be supported by the market and the need for
government funding;
The objectives of this review are:
• consider what evidence exists as to whether or
a To assess what research competencies and
not these competencies need to be maintained
facilities government should help maintain
nationally within the UK;
in order:
• consider whether there are advantages in
• to provide scientific underpinning for the
clustering such competencies in a few centres of
Building Regulations;
excellence which can develop synergies between
• to be able to respond quickly to urgent concerns research areas and integrated expertise in
which may arise over the safety and health application to building systems;
implications of buildings and structures; and
• consider the timescales over which it is
• to support government policy to ensure a reasonable to plan for the maintenance
more competitive and sustainable UK of competencies;
• consult closely with BRE, CRISP, CoConstruct,
Where “competence” is taken to mean CIC Research College, other construction
understanding, knowledge and skills in relation research organisations; academic institutions,
to construction technologies, techniques and and companies who maintain relevant expertise;
processes and their application to building
• understand the approach adopted by EPSRC and
components and systems.
other relevant research councils in support of the
b To review the processes by which research health of the research base in engineering and
priorities are established and research other construction-related disciplines and where
commissioned in order to recommend effective they believe the competencies to lie;
systems for meeting future demand.
• have knowledge of the experience which exists
c To conduct a review of the research of the benefits and disbenefits of maintaining
competencies and facilities. national expertise in centres of excellence.
Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices 37
Annex B Annex C
Science and Technology Policy Research Unit
(SPRU), University of Sussex
UNDERPINNING
(D Gann, A Salter, J Molas-Gallart,
CONSULTEES ANALYSIS
B Cleasby, J Senker, T Sinclair & B Martin)
During the course of the study Sir John Fairclough

held a series of meetings and interviews with key
individuals and representatives from the industry,
research community and funding organisations.
Andrew Abbott Malcolm Dodds Robin Nicholson

Managing Director, Timber Research and Director, Reading Construction Forum Edward Cullinan Architects,
Part a: The review in context Part b: Results of the review
Development Association Chair CRISP Knowledge Task Group,
Andrew Eastwell
M4I Board, Former Chair CIC
C1 Introduction and purpose 41 C4 UK Construction R&D competencies 50
David Adamson Chief Executive, BSRIA
Estates Bursar, Cambridge University, Neil Noble C2 Construction research, C4.1 Sources of funding 50
Sir John Egan
CRISP ‘client’ champion Director of R&D, Arup
Chairman, Strategic Forum development and innovation 41
Stuart Alexander Turlogh O’Brien C4.2 DTI funding across research fields 52
Bob Emmerson
Director WSP Group Deputy Chairman, Arup, C2.1 The need for innovation 41
Chairman, Arup Group C4.3 BRE and the research associations 54
Ex-Chairman, Construction Research and
Graeme Baker
John Findlay Innovation Strategy Panel C2.2 The construction innovation system 42
Deputy Chairman, CRISP, C4.3.1 BRE (Building Research Establishment) 54
Balfour Beatty Special Holdings Division
former Chief Executive of BSRIA Pat O’Sullivan
Roger Flanagan University College London, C2.3 The role of research and
Roger Blundell C4.3.2 TRADA (The Timber Research and
Director of Engineering,
University of Reading, Chairman of BRAC development in construction 45
Board Member, Skanska and Halcrow Development Association) 56
Taywood Construction, Graeme Owens
CRISP Chairman, Technologies Peter Gershon Director, Steel Construction Institute C2.4 Traditional model of construction research 46
C4.3.3 CIRIA (Construction Industry Research
and Components Chief Executive,
Adam Poole C2.5 Emerging patterns of construction research 47 and Information Association) 57
Office of Government Commerce
Peter Brandon Reading Construction Forum
Pro-Vice Chancellor, Salford University Sir Frank Gibb C3 Our approach to the study 47 C4.3.4 BSRIA (Building Services Research
John Rackstraw
Chair Finance and Audit Committee,
Peter Bransby
Foundation For The Built Environment
Managing Director, Pearce Retail and Information Association) 58
Chief Executive, CIRIA, C3.1 Defining research competencies 48
Phil Roberts
CRISP Research Base champion David Guy C4.3.5 SCI (Steel Construction Institute) 59
Hertsmere District Council, C3.2 Competency mapping techniques 49
Economic and Social Research Council
Tim Broyd CRISP Chairman
Director WS Atkins, Chair of Construction Tony Hall C4.4 Quality of research 61
Don Ross
Associate Programme, Foresight Timber Consultant
Group Chairman, Pearce C4.5 Connectivity with research users 62
John Burdett Richard Haryott
Susan Sharland
Secretary, Foundation for the Director, Arup C4.6 Survey of industrial connectivity 63
Chief Executive,
Built Environment.
John Hobson Transport Research Laboratory
Rick Burgess Director of Construction, DTI C4.6.1 Research capabilities 64
Martin Shaw
PRP Architects
Richard Holti Operations Director,
C4.6.2 Meeting research needs 67
Bob Cather The Open University Building Research Establishment
Associate Director, Arup
Rodney Howes John Taylor C4.6.3 Meeting technical consultancy needs 68
Phil Chatfield South Bank University, Director-General of the Research Councils
Environment Agency Chair CIC R&I Committee
Steven Tilsley
C4.6.4 Research collaborators 68
David Clark Peter Hudson Director, Metsec Plc
Director of Research and Innovation, Director, Crown House Engineering C4.7 Higher education and skills 69
Hugh Try
EPSRC
Rod Kimber Chairman, Foundation of the Built C5 International comparison 77
Garth Clarke Science and Engineering Director, Environment, CITB,
Former Chief Executive, Transport Research Laboratory Deputy Chair Gallyod-Try Group C6 Considerations for the Future 80
Transport Research Laboratory
David King Graham Watts
John Connaughton Chief Scientific Adviser Chief Executive, CIC C6.1 Industrial research requirements 80
Senior Partner, Davis Langdon & Everest
Don Leeper Doug Weston C6.2 Government research requirements 80
Phil Cornish Senior Partner, Zisman Bowyer Chief Executive Officer, Taylor Woodrow
Scottish Executive,
Roger McAnoy Mark Whitby C6.3 Research priorities and
Former Director of BRE Scotland
Head of R&D, Senior Partner, Whitby Bird, international connectivity 80
Roger Courtney Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd President, Institute of Civil Engineers
Ex-Chief Executive, C6.4 Restructuring government funding 81
Ron McCaffer Ivor Williams
Vice Chancellor, Executive Director,
John Coulton Loughborough University European Construction Institute C6.5 Effectiveness and competitiveness 81
Wates.
Hugh McKay Ron Williams
C6.6 Scenarios for future research funding 82
Alan Crane Executive Chairman, Stewart Milne Director, Mott McDonald
Movement for Innovation
Jim Meikle Chris Woods
Andrew Davies Senior Partner, Davis Langdon & Everest, Innovation Director, RIBA,
Associate Programme Manager, EPSRC CRISP Support Unit. Research and Development Director,
Wates Construction Ltd
Richard Day Mike Murray
Principal Engineer, Concrete Society Director of Innovation & Technology, Martin Wyatt
AMEC Capital Projects - Construction Chief Executive,
Michael Dickson
Chairman, CIC, Chairman, Paul Newman
Buro Happold Timber Research and
Development Association
ANNEX C: Underpinning analysis - list of tables ANNEX C: Underpinning analysis - the review in context
Part c: List of tables C1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Part a of the report sets the review in context,
articulating the need for innovation in the
Table C1: Breakdown of DTI/DTLR funding by funding Table C18: New skills and competences This report provides an analysis of skills and
construction sector and explaining the
regime expertise in the UK construction research system,
Table C19: Applications for Built Environment Courses, construction research and development system.
focusing on government funded R&D. It forms part
Table C2: Breakdown of DTI/DTLR funding by organisation 1994-2000 The transition from a traditional model of
of the evidence in support of the government
Table C3: Top 10 institutions receiving funding from EPSRC Table C20: Acceptances to undergraduate courses in the construction research to encompass a broader-
review of construction research competencies, led
Built Environment, 1994-2000 based set of issues is analysed. This section ends
Table C4: Distribution of DTI/DTLR funds by research by Sir John Fairclough. It provides an input to the
with a discussion of our approach to the study,
discipline Table C21: Acceptances by applications in undergraduate in assessment of future government funding of
developed specifically to engage with the
the Built Environment, 1994-2000 construction research from DTI and DTLR at the
Table C5: Distribution of EPSRC funds by research discipline particular conditions and issues found in the
BRE and in other research institutions. The
Table C6: Key financial data for the BRE and Research Table C22: Main qualifications construction research system.
contribution of EPSRC-funded research is analysed,
Associations Table C23: Percentage of overseas students applying for Built but recommendations for EPSRC do not fall within Part b presents the results of the review, describing
Table C7: DTI/DTLR internal evaluation scores for major Environment courses the remit of the review. the main research actors, sources of funding and
research organisations Table C24: Percentage of overseas students accepted for fields of research. It provides an assessment of the
The study discusses the role of R&D in the
Built Environment courses extent to which current research and technical
Table C8: Top 10 performers in the 1996 RAE, and their construction innovation system and analyses the
consultancy needs are being met, exploring the
EPSRC funding levels. Table C25: Percentage of women applicants to Built provision of new research skills into the sector. It
quality of research and its connectivity with
Table C9: Top 10 institutions by revenue from the EPSRC Environment courses, 1994-2000 describes the distribution of government research
research users. This section includes an analysis of
Table C26: Percentage of women in acceptances to Built funding to different UK organisations across
Table C10: Top 10 industrial collaborators with EPSRC the likely provision of new research skills. It
Environment courses, 1994-2000 disciplines, drawing on a wide variety of sources
Table C11: Top 10 EPSRC collaborating academic institutions provides a brief view of UK construction research
some of which are new, in order to examine
Table C27: Number of students enrolled in higher education competencies from an international perspective.
Table C12: Areas of strength in research capability present and future requirements. It explores the
in the UK. The report concludes by considering future
connectivity between research organisations and
Table C13: Areas of insufficient research capability requirements and the organisation of research
Table C28: Possible future research topics identified by potential users and beneficiaries, and assesses
Table C14: Importance of future areas of research international experts. activities.
demands for construction research suggesting
Table C15: Importance of different organisations for meeting policies for government funders.
research needs
The work involved a review of existing data sources C2 CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH,
Table C16: Importance of external organisations in meeting indicating the nature, size and shape of the
Part d: List of Figures DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION
industrial technical research needs research base. This included analysis of the flow of
Table C17: Research organisations listed as collaborators by Figure C1: R& D Activities in a mature innovation system new people into built environment higher C2.1 The need for innovation
industrial respondents Figure C2: Construction Systems activities and actions education courses, the quality of construction-
related university departments, and previous Construction is a large and diverse sector of the
input-output analysis of the flow of research funds economy, contributing 5.2% of GDP through
in construction. It also involved developing new value-added in site-based activities, and about 8%
databases using information held by DTI (formerly when construction-related materials and supplies
DETR) and EPSRC – the principal funders of are included. Its products and services provide and
construction R&D. A small-scale survey of maintain the fixed capital – buildings and
connectivity between industry and the research infrastructure – upon which economic and social
base was implemented in the UK and a survey of activities rely. It is a multi-technology sector in
international experts was conducted to seek which design, engineering and production involve
views on strengths and weaknesses of UK the integration of materials and components
construction research. In addition, a workshop produced by other industries. The project-based
was held with Reading Construction Forum nature of supply and demand mean that firms
representing a range of industry views and in- often work together on specific tasks with little
depth interviews were carried out with senior time or incentive to capture lessons, identify
people in construction research. generic problems or develop general purpose
technologies.
This report takes the definition of construction R&D
as its starting point, based on the activities covered
in the Standard Industrial Classification of
construction and OECD definitions of R&D. It
develops a wider concept in exploring research
themes shown to be important for the future, but
not adequately covered in the traditional definition.
ANNEX C: Underpinning analysis - the review in context ANNEX C: Underpinning analysis - the review in context
Requirements for buildings and construction- C2.2 The construction innovation system Figure C1: R&D Activities in a mature innovation system
related services are changing with shifts in the
The primary location of knowledge for innovation
economy, because of the need to meet new social
in the production and adaptation of buildings and
demands and demographic changes and in order
structures resides within design, engineering and
to reduce the long-term impact on the natural
environment. New sustainability targets relating to
construction organisations and firms in supply Funding Relations between activities
industries engaged together in projects. Most
communities and the environment are posing
technological choices are made by designers,
challenges for designers and engineers, Other company technology
engineers and project managers, by materials,
manufacturers, constructors, technologists and
component and specialist suppliers, or by well-
researchers. Trends towards internationalisation in
informed clients. The majority of problems are Company research
production, ownership and use of buildings need
solved by project teams, or by company technical
to be reconciled with meeting differentiated local
support departments. New techniques are
needs and satisfying end-users. Technological
developed in industrial research and development
opportunities need to be exploited in the context
departments, where new technology can be built Linkage programmes
of new business processes enabling firms to
upon existing technology. Thus in general, about
improve product quality, working practices,
90% of innovations arise from the industrial
efficiency and profitability (RAEng, 1996). This
development of pre-existing technology and not
agenda has been stimulated by the Egan Report
from academic science, or science carried out at
(Egan, 1998) and promoted through the Applied research
arms-length in government laboratories (Langrish
Rethinking Construction organisations.
et al., 1972). Research and industry institutions play
These issues shape patterns of new fixed capital important support, developmental and knowledge
investment and challenge traditional approaches to transfer roles. They are often able to take a longer-
design, construction, refurbishment and term view and they can ask questions that might Strategic research
maintenance. Their successful resolution in the not be posed by those working in industry. The
form of new practices in engineering and business ability to think and act independently, question Basic Science
management are vital if the construction sector is received wisdom and current modes of practice and
to produce the types of products and services to provide impartial advice to government on
needed to support a healthy and inclusive society matters of public interest are important attributes in
Disciplines
and a vibrant economy. the research base (Gann, 1997).
There is a political dimension to these issues during The relationship between the research base and
a period of widespread public concern about the research users is one in which problems are solved Source: (Arnold and Thuriaux, 2001)
quality of public spaces, places and infrastructure. and new ideas and technologies are developed
Disquiet about the quality of maintenance and through collaboration in iterative processes. The
renewal of the railway system, our schools, notion of a linear-model of innovation, in which
hospitals and housing have kept these issues under scientific research generates ideas that are
the political spotlight. At the same time, the developed sequentially through applied
government has launched a number of initiatives engineering and technological development,
aimed at improving investment, design, production resulting finally in new products and processes, is
and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure wholly inappropriate in this sector. Even in the few
(DCMS, 2000). New procurement targets set by the industries which can claim direct economic returns
OGC (Office of Government Commerce) and from basic research, the process by which this
design guidance promoted through CABE occurs is by no means linear (Rosenberg, 1991).
(Commission for Architecture and the Built Figure C1 illustrates the iterative linkages and
Environment) aim to change the rules of relationships between basic and applied research
engagement and practices of designers and in a mature innovation system, such as that found
construction firms. The success of these initiatives in construction.
will depend largely upon the innovative capabilities
of people working in design, engineering and
construction organisations, the quality and
timeliness of support they receive from the
construction research community and the
ability of all sides to connect with the problems
that need to be solved. Government funders of
construction research have a central role to play in
stimulating improvements through assistance with
the identification of research needs and the
allocation of sufficient resources to high quality
research providers.
Construction activities rely on a broad base of build an analysis of construction research C2.3 The role of research and development in On their own, narrowly focused R&D activities are
scientific and technological knowledge capabilities and needs. Research in many areas is construction unlikely to result in major benefits to project-based
encompassing many disciplines and fields. These carried out within several disciplinary frameworks, industries with characteristics such as those found
Many technical innovations in construction are
span knowledge about the use of space including and some disciplines encompass a very broad in construction. Benefits from R&D and successful
stimulated by initiatives taken in the supply-chain,
comfort and ergonomics, properties of basic variety of research fields. Applied disciplines like exploitation of results from particular research
by demanding clients, or through changes to
materials and composites, structural engineering, civil engineering are in fact used as umbrella terms projects are only likely to be accrued if other parts
regulations (Gann, 2000). The nature of
external and indoor climate, mechanical, electrical covering a variety of knowledge areas. An example of the innovation system are in place and
constructed products creates particular
and control systems, information technology, a of the wide focus of construction research is operating – such as dissemination and
requirements for research, development and
host of specialist engineering disciplines such as highlighted by work that is carried out on materials communication, training and technical support,
testing. For example, buildings are long-lived,
acoustics, lighting and fire engineering, production within civil engineering and ground engineering marketing and promotion. For these reasons, it has
often combining different vintages of technology,
logistics and project management. Many disciplines, as well as by materials science been shown that R&D has two faces: to develop
and there are many public interest and regulatory
disciplines in the natural, physical, general departments. Construction research is a new products and processes, and to provide the
issues at stake in their design, construction and use
engineering and social sciences provide inputs of multidisciplinary endeavour, which cuts across capabilities needed to absorb lessons and ideas
(Nam and Tatum, 1988). These characteristics
relevance to construction; including newer traditional industrial and institutional barriers and from elsewhere (Cohen and Levinthal, 1989),
mean that there is a requirement to maintain
disciplines such as logistic systems dynamics, draws on knowledge from a wide variety of fields (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). The capacity to
technical knowledge in areas which in other
environmental and management sciences. and technologies. absorb new knowledge and make use of it in
respects may appear to be out of date. Moreover, it
industry is a crucial part of the process that
A substantial part of the research and teaching The main players in the construction research and is not often possible to build full-scale prototypes
connects research with practice. The need to invest
directly relevant to construction is carried out in innovation system are: as is the
in these wider activities often causes confusion in
the civil engineering, construction and architecture case in many manufacturing industries. Testing
• Government funders – DTI (sponsorship), DTLR terms of what is defined as R&D and what falls
departments of higher education institutions. therefore has to be carried out on component
(regulations) and the EPSRC (long-range outside research budgets.
These are applied subjects that draw on inputs parts or sub-elements, and there is increasing use
academic research)
from other sciences, but have become recognised and reliance upon simulation techniques to assess The nature of demand for construction research
as disciplines in their own right, with their own • Independent Research Organisations (IROs) likely performance. can be divided into three broad categories:
professional bodies, university departments and including the BRE (previously government
In broad terms, research and development is an a solving those scientific, technical, social,
courses, and scientific publications. In short, owned);
input to the innovation process, it contributes to economic and environmental problems where
construction related research and higher education
• Universities; innovation in a number of ways (Salter et al., there is some degree of predictability about
is carried out both within dedicated subjects that
2000): future trends and requirements;
draw heavily on other academic disciplines and • Firms, clients and users.
within other subjects and disciplines that can feed • Increasing the stock of useful knowledge b those in which there is little predictability, but
Figure C2 illustrates how the construction
into the construction sector as well as many other where government and industry need
system fits together showing the main activities • Supplying of skilled graduates
economic sectors. Therefore, a disciplinary capabilities to respond quickly to unforeseen
and actions.
classification of construction-related sciences is not • Creating new instrumentation and methods problems or events;
suitable as a conceptual framework on which to
• Developing new networks c development of new ideas and knowledge.
• Enhancing technological problem-solving The efficiency and effectiveness with which

Figure C2: Construction system – activities and actors capacities research is delivered to satisfy demands in the first
category depends upon strong connectivity
• Generating new firms
between research sponsors, research providers and
• Providing social knowledge research users, together with the capability to
Regulatory Framework assess future requirements. Capabilities to meet
Whilst construction is not an R&D intensive
Activities: technical, economic, environmental and social regulation Actors: government, firms, industry associations unforeseen demands in the middle category will
industry, R&D plays a key role in the development
depend upon the maintenance of a healthy,
of the sector. From a technical point of view it is
diverse and dynamic research community. One
extremely important for knowledge transfer and
indication of this might be the extent to which the
Supply Network Project-based Firms Projects systems integration (Iansiti, 1998). It is also
research community is capable of developing its
important in supporting problem-solving and
Activities: materials, components, Activities: design, engineering, Activities: Commissioning and own new and original ideas – the latter category.
equipment manufacture intergration, assembly/construction using constructed projects work-place practices, particularly when
Actors: process, mass-and-batch
professionals and practitioners need to call upon
Actors: consultant designers/ Actors: clients/owners/users
production manufacturing firms engineers, project managers, expertise from outside their own project teams. It
constructors, specialist contractors
is likely that most smaller problems and
incremental improvements are made through this
type of site-based, or shop-floor model (Slaughter,
1993). To some extent, design, engineering and
Technical Support Infrastructure
construction professionals already operate within a
Activities: long-term technical development and support Actors: government, education and R&D institutes, industry associations research mode, in identifying solutions to design
and production issues – the ‘practitioner-
researcher’ role (Groak and Krimgold, 1989).
Source: (Gann, 1997)
Publicly funded research helps to build capabilities internal supply-chains. Few of these capabilities C2.5 Emerging patterns of construction research Demands for new types of R&D are emerging,
if it is invested in a dynamic research-base which remain in place today and the sector invests very away from traditional materials focused areas
The last two decades have been a period of
is connected with the development of new skills – little in formal R&D. towards issues of systems integration and the
extensive restructuring of government
such as in university departments where teaching development of knowledge needed to work in
In the public and independent sectors, research arrangements for PSR. Many British government
and research are coupled. In this context, new markets. Strains are being placed on
activities were typically segmented into several sub- laboratories and technical institutes are now in the
publicly-funded academic research provides traditional construction research processes because
sectors, each of which had a distinctive function. private or independent sectors. There has been a
knowledge and skills on which privately funded R&D it is not easy for them to cope with radical changes
The three main segments were: slow but steady erosion of ‘block grant’ systems in
builds. Evidence from studies of links between in technologies and user requirements together
favour of competitive applications for grants,
scientific research and commercial innovation show • universities; with new approaches to organising construction
leading to a marked change in the distribution of
that companies which carry out R&D cultivate strong processes within a different industrial structure
• government funded laboratories; research among different sectors of PSR. A
links to national sources of academic research from that experienced in the past. The needs to
growing proportion of research grants are now
(Narin, 1996). They do this because universities and • independent research institutes address whole-life cycle approaches, develop
allocated to specific research priorities determined
government laboratories have knowledge which (often funded through subscription) indicators of sustainability, manage environmental
by government. An increasing proportion of
companies find useful. This is not necessarily impact, integrate information systems into
University research has typically been discipline- research now takes place in universities and there
published information, but ‘know-how’ that cannot buildings and develop PFI proposals are all creating
based, focusing mainly on long-term research issues is a decreasing role for research institutes. This has
be written down (Faulkner and Senker, 1995). Much new demands on the research system. In some
for the advancement of knowledge and the training led to a casualisation of scientific manpower, with
of this knowledge can only be accessed by close cases, new research providers are emerging to
of new generations of researchers. Independent a movement away from the full-time professional
collaborative links over long periods of time. It often address the broader issues of innovation in the
research organisations are usually dedicated to and experienced researchers who worked in the
takes time for inventions to become successful built-environment which include more customer-
multi-disciplinary research focusing on a specific institutes, to part-time researchers/lecturers, staff
commercial innovations. A healthy dynamic is focused approaches, engagement with end-users
industry, product type or activity – e.g. timber, steel, on short-term contracts and young inexperienced
therefore needed between IROs, the university and new sensitivities to construction’s impact on
etc. They also include independent research research students. Government has constantly
sector and private firms. For example, firms tend to the environment.
management and brokering organisations which emphasised the need for all sectors of PSR to
focus on short-term demands driven by immediate
liaise closely with industrial users. In the UK, such support innovation, undertake ‘relevant’ research
pressures of business. IROs inhabit the mid-term
research was the responsibility of separate parts of and engage in technology transfer. Every sector of
position, often acting as an interface between long- C3 OUR APPROACH TO THE STUDY
government laboratories. For instance, technical PSR is under increasing pressure to raise research
range research and short-term practical
institutes to support specific sectors of funds from external agencies, with the result that In order to take account of the particular nuances
requirements. Problems arise when the system falls
manufacturing industry carried out applied, they are all in competition for research contracts of construction research highlighted above, our
out of balance – for example if research necessary to
industrially relevant research and transferred the from government and industry (Senker, 2001). approach to this study involved collating and
underpin new innovation is constrained by
results to industry. The activities of these different analysing a number of different data sources. This
privatisation, secrecy and short-term agendas. In this The emerging model of construction research in
sectors of Public Sector Research (PSR) used to be included indicators of the nature, size and shape of
environment, researchers’ skills and capabilities to the UK is one of a distributed network of providers
complementary, with each sector drawing on the the research base, analysis of the flow of new
conduct long-term enquiries, teaching and diffusion in the public, independent and private sectors.
knowledge and expertise developed in the other people into built environment higher education
of knowledge can deteriorate. Eventually the These providers may be in competition or they may
sectors. There was a diversity of funding courses, the quality of construction-related
research-base becomes unsustainable in terms of collaborate together – sometimes both at the same
arrangements for PSR. Two main approaches could university departments, and previous input-output
maintaining a long-range focus and it is difficult to time. There has been a shift away from central
be identified: the Research Council model in which analysis of the flow of research funds in
renew research competencies. government support for the BRE and it was
grants for university research were allocated on the construction. It also involved developing new
privatised in 1997, with a five-year promissory
basis of competitive peer review. These grants databases using information held by DTI (formerly
C2.4 Traditional model of construction research note. The new pattern is one of public-private
complemented core funding for academic salaries DETR) and EPSRC – the principal funders of
partnerships, loose networks, interdisciplinarity
The traditional model of construction research from and research infrastructure. The second approach – construction R&D. A small-scale survey of
and increasing internationalisation. For example,
the 1920s to the 1980s was clearly divided between the block grant system – gave researchers in relevant connectivity between industry and the research
funding from the European Union has become
public and private sectors. This was the era of universities, research institutes and government base was implemented in the UK and a survey of
more important over the past 20 years and many
government support for research institutions, which laboratories a degree of freedom in deciding on the international experts was conducted to seek views
research institutions are involved in collaborative
were created because of their perceived importance internal allocation of funds. on strengths and weaknesses in UK construction
European projects. The traditional requirements of
to particular parts of the economy and to research. In addition, a workshop was held with
This traditional system has come under increasing understanding UK construction research in a
government policy-making. Reading Construction Forum, representing a range
strain – as it has in the defence industry and other national context have been superseded by the
of industry views, and in-depth interviews were
The BRE was the first national building research areas where public sector research was once need to assess the international arena, whilst
carried out with senior people in construction
institute of its kind. It was established to provide dominant. In particular the capabilities to undertake evaluating results in terms of local needs and
research.
facilities for independent testing, monitoring and R&D have been eroded in the private sector because relation to the type and size of firm and the nature
advice on building performance, regulations and of the structural changes that have taken place over of product and process.
production issues. The principal research user was the past 25 years with a shift to specialist sub-
the public sector. In the private sector, a number of contracting and a loss of in-house technical
leading contractors had their own technical research expertise. UK public research capabilities to
laboratories and were capable of developing new underpin innovation in construction have been
products, systems and processes. Until the 1980s UK affected by underlying changes to the organisation
construction firms tended to be more vertically of public sector research. A new system is emerging
integrated than they are now and this meant that in which the distinctions between public and private
research expertise could be linked up and down are becoming blurred (Gibbons et al., 1994).
C3.1 Defining research competencies C3.2 Competency mapping techniques Both the DTI/DTLR PACT and EPSRC databases
were restructured to allow for consistency in
This study adopted a definition of construction Information and communication technologies. To review the nature of construction research
analysis. The EPSRC data was classified using the
R&D based on the Standard Industrial Classification Includes R&D on all electronics and communications competencies in the UK we used a variety of data
following fields:
of construction and OECD definitions of R&D to be assembled into buildings, including smart sources. As discussed above, the efficiency and
(ONS, 1992). It develops a wider definition in homes and intelligent building equipment. effectiveness with which research is delivered to • Project name
exploring research themes shown to be important satisfy user and societal demands depends both on
Management processes. Including processes and • Contractor’s name (main contractor)
but not adequately covered in the traditional the scientific and technological capabilities of the
techniques to manage the production and use of
definition. research base and on its “connectivity” with • Contractor’s RAE score
built environments throughout their life cycle.
research users and beneficiaries. Our analysis
What are research competencies and how do we • Research discipline
Materials and components. All types of materials identifies and develops indicators addressing both
define these in the context of requirements in the
used in the built environment including traditional aspects: research capabilities and their connectivity. • Total grant value
production and use of the built environment? The
and basic materials: brick, concrete, timber, glass This calls for the use of a variety of indicators and
standard OECD definition of Research and • Completion date
etc. and composites and new materials such as research techniques in order to provide a
Development (R&D) as defined in the Frascati
advanced structural materials, excluding research comprehensive mapping of resources across a • Abstract
manual, and used in the elaboration of official R&D
related to the structure of buildings. broad spectrum of organisations and areas of
statistics, is not necessarily an appropriate tool for The analysis examines all projects completed after
research, and of their complex interactions with
the study of innovation in the construction Structures. Research related to building structures June 30th 1997. This date was chosen as the cut
users and beneficiaries.
industries. Innovative activities that are key to the and substructures. This includes research into off point because prior to it the original data was
development of this sector are not formally framing technologies, structural design and Some of the indicators in our analysis have been not complete. Projects currently in progress were
considered R&D. Most engineering and design components specifically related to the structure. used before, while others have been used in this included in our analysis.
activities, project development and problem- study for the first time. Data sources used here are:
Mechanical and electrical engineering. The The DTI/DTLR PACT database included a total of
solving activities are not formally considered R&D
engineering and design of electrical and • The DTI/DTLR PACT Database – 1064 projects, 1064 research projects, with a value of just over
although they contribute to the innovative
mechanical systems that form part of the built every project has been coded and analysed £124million. From the database of EPSRC-funded
performance and competitiveness of the industry.
environment, but excluding those related to the by SPRU projects we selected a total of 891 projects directly
Research funding organisations and research internal environmental control of buildings. related to construction. The total value of the
• EPSRC Database – 5000 projects, of which
providers have used different classifications when research projects selected was over £101million.
Internal environment. All aspects of research to 891 core projects have been coded and
organising their activities into fields of enquiry. For
assess and address the impact of buildings with analysed by SPRU Gaps in this data and additional information have
instance, the former DETR’s Business Plan approach
respect to their internal environment, including fire been captured using a range of additional
classified projects under: best practice, • UCAS/HESA Database
safety, health and safety, regulatory issues, techniques, most of them qualitative:
construction process, safety and health,
ergonomic design and space planning. • HEFCE RAE Database
sustainable construction, and technology and • A programme of face-to-face semi-structured
performance. These formed the basis of business External environment. Techniques to assess and We also obtained raw data on the most important interviews with key players to acquire views on
plans and the distribution of research funding to deal with the impact of buildings on their UK government construction research support existing research competencies and their
meet particular goals driven by government policy surrounding environment. This includes issues programmes. Data on all the research projects relevance given future needs. The interviews
objectives. There is a mixture here of categories related to sustainability and waste management. granted by the EPSRC and the DTI/DTLR PACT were used to complete and verify our map of
defined by research goals (sustainability, databases were processed into two databases that the construction research capabilities and elicit,
Other. Those projects that were impossible to
competitiveness, health and safety) with others could support a detailed analysis of construction explore and prioritise the most important
classify in the above areas.
addressing specific areas of activity (construction research. The information has allowed us to issues concerning the future of construction
process). In fact, funding organisations often mix Every project was individually coded and classified identify the structure of publicly-funded research in terms of funding provision and
research objectives (sustainability, competitiveness) according to its main purpose as stated in the construction research, the main research competencies. A total of 25 interviews were
with broad disciplines (civil engineering, acoustics) project abstract. This classification provides a tool performers (receivers of funds), their location, their carried out.
and research subjects (concrete, fire protection) to bring analytical consistency to the study and main areas of activity and the partnerships
• A workshop, organised by the Reading
when defining and structuring their portfolio of offers a conceptual framework for the subsequent established between research organisations and
Construction Forum to verify initial results and
activities. However, it is difficult to develop a analysis of strengths and weaknesses in UK firms and other potential users. The analysis of
discuss the views of the construction industry as
conceptual framework to analyse and map construction-related research. We have used it subject disciplines followed the classification
to existing research capacities and future needs.
construction research capabilities at a national level throughout the study, both in our questionnaires presented in Section C3.1 above. An additional
(comparing different research funders and and as a means to classify the research projects section for projects that could not be classified into • A questionnaire, distributed to 101 UK
providers) using this type of categorisation. funded by the EPSRC and DTI/DTLR of relevance any of the categories was included. construction experts, to identify the degree of
to construction. alignment between existing research
For a meaningful analysis of research capabilities
capabilities as perceived by industrial players
we needed to draw on a classification of
and future needs and requirements.
technological and scientific areas based on
mutually exclusive fields. In reality, many projects In addition British capabilities have been compared
are multi-disciplinary and cover more than one with those of similar countries by means of a
area of research. We devised a classification based limited international review exploring views from
on eight main fields where technological and outside the UK on the current state of our
organisational competencies are needed in support construction research base.
of the UK construction industry:
ANNEX C: Underpinning analysis - results of the review ANNEX C: Underpinning analysis - results of the review
C4 UK CONSTRUCTION R&D COMPETENCIES The first two regimes represent exclusive Table C2: Breakdown of DTI/DTLR Funding by Organisation
agreements with the BRE, while the rest are open
C4.1 Sources of funding to a variety of organisations. Table C1 shows the
Amount (£) Funding % Number Average size
distribution of DTI/DTLR construction-related
The main UK construction-related research of projects of project (£)
research and innovation funding across these
organisations receive most of their research
regimes. There is a clear disparity in the size of the Building Research
funding from public sources, mainly the DTI, DTLR
funding regimes: three of them (Partners in Establishment 79.4m 63.9 461 172k
and the EPSRC. We have analysed all construction-
Innovation and the BRE Collaborative and
related research projects funded from these BSRIA 5.0m 4.0 71 70k
Framework programmes) account for 94% of the
sources during a four year period between July
projects funded. The most important programme is CIRIA 4.5m 3.6 55 81k
1997 and 2001. These sources are, however, very
the Partners in Innovation (PII) scheme, accounting
different in their scope and objectives. The EPSRC TRADA
for 63% of all DTI-sponsored projects and 39% of
funds research carried out at universities, often in Technology 3.5m 2.9 39 91k
the total value of funding. In comparison, the BRE
collaboration with other government and private
collaborative / framework regimes account for a HR Wallingford 2.5m 2.0 37 66k
research centres and industry. In contrast, the DTI
lower number of projects (31% of the total), while
funds research under a variety of programmes FBE Management 1.9m 1.5 1 1.9m
accounting for 56% of the total funds invested.
targeted mainly at research establishments and
Therefore, BRE-specific programmes enjoy bigger Steel Construction
industry, while the DTLR funds research primarily at
project sizes. The BRE receives the largest Institute
the BRE in furtherance of the building regulations. 1.9m 1.5 44 42k
proportion of DTI/DTLR funding, whilst delivering
(Data was taken from that formerly managed BRE Scotlab 1.7m 1.3 17 98k
its research through fewer projects.
within the DETR Construction Research
Directorate). The main funding regimes were: Others 23.8m 19.2 339 70k
Table C1: Breakdown of DTI/DTLR Funding
• BRE Collaborative by Funding Regime
• BRE Framework Source: SPRU/DTI/DTLR PACT Database
Number of Monetary
• Competitive The distribution of all DTI/DTLR funding across The case of the FBE Management, with one
projects % value %
• Fast track organisations is presented in Table C2. The data single project accounting for almost £2 million,
BRE Collaborative 8.2 16.8 shows that, since July 1997, the BRE received over deserves special mention. This funding supports
• LINK programmes £79 million, corresponding to nearly 64% of all the management of the Construction Best
BRE Framework 22.8 39.2
• Partners in Innovation DTI/DTLR funding. Only 7 other organisations Practice Programme (CBPP). Although FBE
Competitive 1.8 1.5 received funds over £1million, with the largest of Management is financially independent from the
Fast track 1.5 0.1 these being BSRIA, with an allocation of just over BRE, it is located within the BRE campus. If funds
£5million; and CIRIA, with funds just under received by BRE Scotlab were added to the total
LINK 1.1 0.9 £4.5million. The “Others” classification accounts BRE funding, we could conclude that the BRE and
LINK IDAC for £24million (19%) of funding, distributed over its associated organisations receive 67.7% of total
0.5 0.2
164 different organisations. In total, most of the DTI/DTLR funding.
LINK MCNS 0.9 0.8 DTI/DTLR funding (over 80%) is received by
In addition to the BRE, only a small number of
Partners in Independent Research Organisations (IROs).
organisations (mainly research associations) receive
Innovation 63.2 39.2 The pre-eminence of the BRE among the substantial levels of funding from the DTI/DTLR,
organisations funded by the DTI/DTLR is due to with nearly one fifth of the funding being
Others 0.9 1.4
the existence of the BRE Framework and distributed among a long tail of smaller research
Collaborative arrangements. The average size of organisations. An analysis of the internal structure
projects at the BRE is £172,230, compared to an and challenges faced by the largest of these
Source: SPRU/DTI/DTLR PACT Database average per project funding of £70,584 at BSRIA; associations is presented in the section below.
£81,514 at CIRIA and £42,543 at the Steel
Construction Institute. DTI/DTLR funding at BRE
appears to be for significantly larger projects than
at other organisations.
The EPSRC awards a similar amount of funds to the C4.2 DTI funding across research fields Table C4 details the distribution of DTI/DTLR Table C5 details the distribution of EPSRC funded
DTI/DTLR in the support of construction-related funded research by research field. The figures show research across the same range of research fields.
The current DTI/DTLR R&D portfolio is wide ranging,
research. The recipients are exclusively universities. the dominance of four main research areas, with The data shows a similar selection of priority areas.
including projects with the following aims:
They are not among the main recipients of materials and components being the most Materials and components are again the most
DTI/DTLR funding. Therefore, the DTI/DTLR and the • to establish and develop new and improved important field both in terms of the number of important field, concentrating an even higher
EPSRC distribute their funding to differentiated technologies and techniques, including projects (18% of the total) and monetary value proportion of the research funds distributed by the
research constituencies. Table C3 shows the 10 technical support for process change and (25% of total funds). The importance of the EPSRC (36%), than in the case of the DTI/DTLR.
academic institutions receiving the largest amount development of new and improved materials; “internal environment” area (accounting for 20% Similar to the DTI/DTLR approach, other areas
of funding from the EPSRC. The data shows that of total funding) reflects the importance that receiving special attention are management
• to support industry codes and standards,
EPSRC funding is more evenly distributed between government places upon public interest research in processes (19%), and external environment (16%),
which aim to improve competitiveness;
research organisations than the DTI’s. This is areas such as building regulations and health and while ICTs and electrical and mechanical receive
reflected by the fact that the largest beneficiary of • to encourage business improvement, including safety. External environment also receives a similar again very little funding (only 4% and 2%
EPSRC funds (Imperial College) receives only 8% of utilisation of IT as an enabler to better amount of funding (19%), highlighting a respectively). The poor funding in the last two
total EPSRC funding of construction-related performance, whole life issues, and case commitment to research into environmental areas is again a reflection of their poor profile in
research (compared with the 64% of DTI funding studies and benchmarking; impacts and the focus on issues such as the industry as a whole. The similarity between the
absorbed by the BRE). The spread of funding is also sustainability. EPSRC and DTI/DTLR distribution of funds across
• to promote innovation and culture change;
highlighted by the fact that a total of 29 research areas suggests that both organisations
In contrast, our analysis shows that research into
institutions received funds exceeding £1 million, • to support improvements in construction have similar research priorities.
Information and Communication Technologies
compared with only 7 organisations exceeding this process, relating to product development and
(ICT) and Electrical and Mechanical areas, receive
amount in DTI/DTLR-funded activities during the design, and to improve the efficiency of the Table C5: Distribution of EPSRC Funds by
comparatively little attention, both in terms of
period. EPSRC funding is distributed amongst 85 process. For the former, the aims are for more Research Discipline
number of projects funded and their monetary
of the 101 universities and there is a tail of smaller satisfied clients and users, better design for
value. This probably reflects the industry-wide
projects. DTI/DTLR funded nearly double the sustainability and a product fit for purpose. The
reluctance to invest in the development of new Number of Monetary
number of organisations, although the average efficiency agenda includes improving the
information technologies for their application to projects% value%
project sizes are similar (£113,862 for the EPSRC supply chain, promoting standardisation and
the built environment and the development of
and £116,727 for the DTI). pre-assembly, improving site productivity and ICT 3.8 5.1
innovative building services.
performance, and minimising waste and
Table C3: Top 10 Institutions Receiving Management
pollution. Throughout, it is important to
Table C4: Distribution of DTI/DTLR Funds by processes 18.6 19.4
Funding from the EPSRC integrate thinking on human factors in the
Research Discipline
construction process; Materials and
• to underpin improved performance in respect components 36.1 34.5
Amount (£) Funding%
Amount (£) Number Monetary
for people issues, safety and health in and Structures 13.1 11.1
Imperial College 8.1m 8.0 of projects% value %
around buildings, and impacts on the wider
community. ICT 4.9m 4.5 3.9 Electrical and
University of
mechanical 1.8 2.6
Sheffield 7.4m 7.3 Management
processes 17.1m 17.6 13.7 Internal
University of
environment 9.1 9.0
Nottingham 6.3m 6.2 Materials and
components 31.4m 18.2 25.2 External
Loughborough
environment 15.8 16.5
University 4.9m 4.9 Structures 12.1m 11.9 9.7
Others 1.7 1.8
University of
Electrical and
Southampton 4.6m 4.5 mechanical 5.2m 4.2 4.1
University
Internal
College London Source: SPRU/EPSRC Database of
4.1m 4.0 environment 24.6m 15.2 19.7 Construction Research
University of Salford 3.6m 3.6 External
University of Leeds 3.4m 3.4 environment 23.3m 16.4 18.7
Cranfield University 3.1m 3.0 Others 6.0m 3.2 4.8
Heriot-Watt
University 2.9m 2.8
Source: SPRU/DTI/DTLR PACT Database.
Others 53.1m 52.3
Source: SPRU/EPSRC Database of Construction Research
C4.3 The Building Research Establishment (BRE) People profile BRE is very active in the publication front, including Organisational linkages
and the research associations the production of hundreds of academic papers
Almost half of BRE’s total staff of about 600 are BRE works and competes with other UK research
each year. In contrast, however, BRE holds only 2 or
The main independent research organisations qualified to first degree level, with 107 Masters and consultancy organisations according to
3 patents (this is somewhat surprising given the
receiving funding from the DTI/DTLR are the BRE and 87 Doctorates. Also about half the members particular circumstances. These circumstances are
potential to develop new products and in
and the member-based research associations. Of of staff have additional professional qualifications changing; for instance, although traditionally
comparison with some IROs in other fields, such as
these, there are five main recipients of funding: and 66 hold academic posts as visiting staff or in universities have not been seen as competitors,
TWI – The Welding Institute).
BSRIA 4%; CIRIA 4%; TRADA 3%; HR Wallingford an examining or advisory roles. This linkage with BRE executives consider that competition with
3%; SCI 2%. These organisations differ from one academia is extended to the hosting of students to Dissemination is also carried out through seminars, higher education institutions is increasing. The
another in the nature and content of their services carry out work in the establishment; these students workshops and conferences in the UK and main universities considered to be closer to a BRE
and they are considered in detail below. They also provide a good source of future employees. BRE overseas. BRE-managed initiatives like the range of activities and interests are Edinburgh,
receive government funding from other sources, tends to recruit experienced graduates and give Construction Best Practice Programme and Ulster, Imperial College, Loughborough and
for example SCI has been sponsored by DTI’s them further training where appropriate. Turnover assistance in the Movement for Innovation provide Reading. With some of these universities, the BRE
Engineering Industries Directorate and CIRIA and of staff is generally low, although it is higher a channel for dissemination through the activities has established formal Memoranda of
HR Wallingford receive research funding from among employees in their mid-20s. BRE receives or regional clubs and networks. BRE has an impact Understanding to frame collaborative initiatives.
DEFRA and the Environment Agency. A number of some secondees and is involved in personnel assessment unit that measures dissemination Closer cooperation with universities is seen by
other research institutions provide research services exchanges with UK and international performance in specific areas. BRE executives as a way to reduce costs by
to construction, including TRL, AEA and TWI. The organisations. making better use of BRE’s unique facilities and
level of funding as a proportion of the total Funding profile avoiding duplication.
DTI/DTLR expenditure is less than 1% to these Research and funding
BRE turnover in 2000 was £35m with an operating
organisations and we have therefore not included Strengths and weaknesses
BRE activities attempt to cover all aspects of profit of about £2m. Most of the income is from
them in the study.
relevance to the built environment, its components research projects, with consultancy, training In our interviews, BRE executives saw its strengths
Over recent years government has supported the and materials, and standards and certification courses and sales of publications making up the as the interdisciplinary nature of its approach to
Co-Construct partnership: BSRIA, CIRIA, SCI, work. It claims to be the UK’s leading centre of bulk of the remainder. All profits are reinvested in problems, its independent nature (unlike the
TRADA and the Concrete Society to work expertise on buildings, construction, energy, research, mostly at BRE and in the support of PhD member-based research associations) and its
together in a complementary way. environment, fire and risk, and provides research, studentships in the built environment area. location. The diversity of BRE activities, with the
consultancy and information services world wide. associated managerial difficulties is seen as one of
The major change 5 years ago was the privatisation
C4.3.1 BRE The range of its activities is wide; Construction is its weaknesses, as well as its limited engagement
of BRE under a Framework Agreement and a
one of 5 Divisions: Construction, Fire & Risk with industry. There was a recognition that perhaps
BRE is a centre for research and consultancy, steady decrease in public funding from about
Sciences, Environment, Energy and Information. BRE was “too academic” in its activities and
focusing on buildings, construction and the £19m in 1996 to about £8m in 2001. A large
For instance, within BRE’s Construction Division approach and had to become more “applied” in
prevention of fire. It employs a staff of 600, over component of this funding comes from the DTLR
there are Centres for Ground Engineering & outlook. The organisation’s high overheads were
350 of whom hold professional qualifications. and in the form of research in support of the
Remediation, Concrete Construction, Timber also thought to be a disadvantage when tendering
Their research is structured in a number of “centres building regulations.
Technology/Construction, Whole Life Construction for research, particularly when bidding against
of excellence” providing testing facilities for
& Conservation and Structural Engineering. Its For the future, BRE aims to increase its knowledge universities.
industry and government as well as engaging in
work is often interdisciplinary; over 80% of BRE base through carrying out research rather than
R&D. The BRE is owned by the Foundation for the In summary, since privatisation in 1997, the BRE
projects involve two or more centres working on consultancy. Yet, BRE executives consider that any
Built Environment, a non-profit company formed has received 64% of former DETR construction
different aspects of the problems. possible changes in policies supporting research for
by some 150 firms, professional bodies and other R&D funding, amounting to about £80m.
the building regulations and a decrease in
organisations. The rationale is to provide a BRE is engaged in about 400 projects for public It received further funds from other government
DTI/DTLR funding to about £6m would constitute a
structure for BRE, allowing it to remain bodies (DTI/DTLR, EPSRC, EA, MOD) plus a large sources. Internal government evaluation processes
worst case scenario that would drive BRE to doing
independent. (www.bre.co.uk) number of private sector projects. Although the found BRE’s performance to be average in quality,
less research and more consultancy.
main research activities are on the built albeit with some notable exceptions. But given
The BRE has been in existence for more than seven
environment, other areas of research include that BRE received 64% of the funds and dominates
decades. The organisation was privatised in 1997.
aviation, fire, transport, security and infrastructure. the statistics, performance might be expected to
The organisation differs from the sector research
be around average.
associations in the broader scope of its activities By virtue of its size and coverage, BRE sees itself as
and for being less close to the market in some the leading centre of expertise in the UK and as one
respects. BRE is also more involved in European of the top three construction-related research
activities and projects. organisations in the world (with VTT – Finland, and
TNO – The Netherlands). BRE’s facilities are
extensive and in many areas unique, including
large-scale wind tunnels, presses, fire hall, acoustic
and lighting laboratories, test houses, etc.
C4.3.2 TRADA (The Timber Research and TRADA is organised into four main groups – timber Funding profile C4.3.3 CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and
Development Association) housing, engineering timber and components, Information Association)
TRADA Technology traded at a loss of about
non-structural uses and the timber supply chain.
TRADA specialises in the use of timber and wood £43,000 in 2000, due to a drop in subscriptions A research and consultancy based organisation
Research in timber housing is considered
products in the construction and building and higher site maintenance costs. Most of the aiming to improve industrial performance. CIRIA
particularly important, with joint research initiatives
industries. The organisation offers quality company’s income is from membership fees and runs a collaborative research programme
with the BRE and an experimental full-scale six
assurance schemes through BM TRADA. consultancy work. TRADA has a significant number addressing different aspects of business practice
storey timber building. The engineered
of members and clients in other sectors (like including legislation and regulation, training,
TRADA’s precursor was founded in 1934. Conflicts components group is focusing on the development
furniture and DIY) and overseas (about 10% of the management and economics, sustainability and
between its status as a research association and of cheaper, faster and better timber components:
total client base of more than 1000). the environment. CIRIA encourages the diffusion
trading company rules led to the formation of for example, testing different floor sealants. The
and application of best practice through a number
TRADA Technology Ltd, a company within the TTL timber supply chain area covers benchmarking, Research income from public sources is almost
of networks it manages; mainly the Construction
Chiltern Group. TRADA Technology has a 5 year performance indicators and market surveys for wholly from DTI/DTLR and the EU, with a single
Industry Environmental Forum (CIEF) and the
contract (from 1999) to provide the Group with the industry. DTI/DTLR grant representing 17% of total income
Construction Productivity Network (CPN). It also
research and technology services. It promotes itself (down from 24% five years ago). It is expected that
TRADA considers itself to be particularly strong in provides training events, in-house consultancy and
as the leading timber research, consultancy and the share of government research income will
the area of timber frames, where it considers that supply chain seminars.
information provider for the construction industry. continue to decline. At present, under the terms of
it has more resources than the BRE. It is also (www.ciria.org.uk)
(www.trada.co.uk) this grant, the DTI provides matching funds for a
prioritising work on sustainability, waste recycling
number of TRADA research projects. If the grant CIRIA is a not-for-profit organisation set up in
and fire research. Although it is mature, the fire
People profile were withdrawn, there would be a reduction in the 1960 as CERA (it became CIRIA in 1964), to
testing facility at TRADA is considered to be unique
amount of research done by TRADA, with a greater promote R&D in construction. Its mission is to
TRADA Technology currently has 48 people on site, in the UK. Other facilities include a “Single Burning
focus on short-term research projects funded by promote and disseminate best practice in the
34 of whom are technical staff. Most of the staff Item”, a permeability box and various structural
specific industry sponsors. Although there is not construction industry.
are in the 25-40 age range, with the technical staff (creep and load) and laboratory testing equipment.
likely to be a timber programme in the next
tending to be the younger. A majority of the These facilities are leased to other organisations,
European Commission Framework Programme People profile
technical staff are graduates, with about 10 and TRADA also uses facilities elsewhere (e.g. in
(unlike the current FP5), TRADA expects to be able
Masters and 6 PhDs. One member of staff is a universities) when necessary. There are no plans to About 70% of CIRIA’s staff are over 30, with the
to submit proposals under other programme areas.
Visiting Fellow. The staff includes chartered invest in any major new facility in the next 5 years, same percentage being applicable to engineers
engineers, architects and qualified wood scientists. but some minor equipment may be acquired for and to other scientific and non-technical staff.
Organisational linkages
The company runs a series of in-house, half-day tests on slippery floorings, abrasion of floor seals, Thirty-one members of staff have a first degree,
training seminars each month, which technical and building “airtightness”. TRADA executives mentioned “Co-Construct” as 13 of them Masters and 4 Doctorates. CIRIA is
staff are expected to attend. the major programme linking TRADA with other also encountering increasing difficulty in filling
TRADA publishes a series of information brochures
complementary organisations (TRADA sees the vacancies. Similar to other organisations, staff
TRADA is currently under-resourced, with (now up to about 85), target market surveys and
other IROs in the sector as complementary turnover is low with only about 15% of staff
vacancies unfilled for engineers, technicians and more technical reports. About 10 papers are
organisations, but the BRE is perceived as a major leaving within 5 years of commencing work at
consultants. Particularly, TRADA finds it difficult to published in refereed journals each year, but very
competitor especially since its privatisation). the organisation.
attract experienced personnel. Staff turnover is little patenting is done, partly because of the effort
TRADA also works with professional institutions,
thought to be lower than in industry, with average required. Dissemination is aimed mainly at CIRIA organises internal training programmes and
particularly those for structural and civil engineers.
length of employment in the organisation probably members and deals with specific issues of interest appraisals, with external training where this is
above 5 years. to the industry. TRADA has regular contacts with about 15 UK appropriate. A number of graduates acquire more
universities and works most closely with Bath, relevant professional qualifications during their
With a strong market interface, TRADA believes it
Research and dissemination activities is able to assess the quality of its work from the
Bangor, Buckingham, Aberdeen and South Bank. time in CIRIA. Short-term employment, exchanges
or secondments are limited.
TRADA policy is that technical staff undertake reactions of its customers, yet it has no formal
impact assessment process in place. TRADA
Opportunities and threats
research as one of a number of wider tasks; in
sometimes finds it difficult to demonstrate direct
Research profile
particular direct contact with sponsors is given a Particularly since its privatisation the BRE is seen as
high priority. TRADA also organises a series of results from research projects funded by DTI/DTLR, a competitor and TRADA compares its capacities CIRIA seeks to produce best practice guidance for
about 20 seminars to promote timber to UK with many of the research outputs being with those of the BRE on an area-by-area basis. For the whole of the construction and engineering
professionals and runs the secretariat for some BSI incremental contributions, whose impact is difficult instance, TRADA considers that there is direct area. Rather than being a research organisation,
standard committees. to isolate. competition with the BRE in preservatives, that CIRIA works on the dissemination and application
TRADA is stronger in timber frames and sees the of innovative ideas over a wide spectrum of areas
BRE as better in timber drying and sawing. and produces training material. It does not hold
patents nor does it engage in academic research.
Organisations from overseas, particularly from
CIRIA executives see the organisation as one of the
Sweden, France, Denmark and Finland are seen as
most respected brands in the UK construction
strong international competitors, all of them
sector, certainly on a par with BRE. In an
benefiting from higher levels of public funding.
assessment of customer services carried out by
TRADA does not expect to remain in its present AEA Technology, CIRIA was ranked 1st or 2nd in
form. In particular, contacts and co-operation with relevant areas, beaten only by the Environment
other European countries are likely to increase. Agency and DETR. CIRIA has no research
equipment facilities.
CIRIA focuses on national work, but engages in area in which its strongest competitor, BRE, is Research and dissemination profile Organisational linkages
world-wide dissemination. Publications take the perceived as being weak). Yet, CIRIA is also
Research is only part (and not the most important) BRE was BSRIA’s closest partner until the former
form of research reports (about 40 per annum) experiencing skill shortages (especially engineers).
of BSRIA’s business. A Centre for Operations was privatised. Now BSRIA perceives BRE as its
and funders’ reports (about 100 per annum). CIRIA Although the core activities are much the same as
Research was set up in 2001 and there are about largest competitor, with substantial overlapping of
does not publish in academic journals, although 5 years ago, dissemination and demonstration
47 current research projects covering the capabilities in some areas. The main partners are
reports are peer reviewed internally. Copies of all projects have become more important and it is
environment, technology and engineering, now considered to be the BSRIA members who
reports are given to all members and are made expected that in the near future the importance of
building maintenance and operation, process and fund research. There are 750 members, of which
more widely known through the website, networking and support services for company
productivity and best practice and management. about 60 are actively participating in BSRIA
catalogues and press releases. applications will become more important.
BSRIA has a range of state-of-the-art facilities, activities. BSRIA has also developed linkages with
CIRIA runs learning networks (about 40 per including heat transfer and radio test facilities, all several universities including Loughborough,
C4.3.4 BSRIA (Building Services Research and
annum), conferences and workshops (20 per of them run on a commercial basis. Cranfield, Lancaster, Reading and South Bank.
Information Association)
annum) and holds launches of major new Because at times BSRIA competes with universities
Priorities are driven by the availability of funds,
publications. Impact assessment is informal and is An organisation with specific technical expertise in for work, the establishment of long-term
with a discernible shift away from “hard”
usually based on feedback from members. heating ventilation, air conditioning, plumbing, collaborative relationships is difficult.
technology (hardware, controls) to more human-
energy conservation, building and energy
centred projects (management, process). Over the BSRIA has extensive international links, especially
Funding profile management systems, data communication and
last 5 years projects have also become more with France but also Denmark, Holland, Italy,
market analysis. BSRIA is a member-based
Funding comes from member subscriptions applied, less risky and shorter-term. There is a Spain, USA, Australia and New Zealand. Germany
organisation providing research services and an
(approximately 25%), sales (25%) and research trend toward further commercialisation of BSRIA’s is seen as the main overseas competitor.
interface between industry and government. The
and consultancy projects (50%). CIRIA’s client base activities, which is likely to continue over the
Construction Directorate at the DTI is their single
is 95% British. About half the contributions are near future. Strengths and weaknesses
largest contributor to funding, but it has a wide
from the public sector and the other half from
membership including consulting engineers, A main conduit for the dissemination of BSRIA’s BSRIA executives see its independence from the
private sources. DTI funding in particular is seen as
contractors, manufacturers, building operators, activities is its publications, mainly application trading association as an important asset, together
strategic in nature, providing a catalyst for the
government bodies and utilities. It currently guides based on the results of its research. It also with the enduring commitment to research,
development of new research activities.
works with over 200 partners. BSRIA’s current publishes market intelligence reports and although the organisation is weak in academic
This composition of research income has remained research programme comprises forty projects presentations made at internal and external research. It also has a good dissemination system,
by and large stable over the past 5 years. However, valued at over £6million. conferences and seminars. Some products with an active distribution of its publications both
in the latest financial year it has suffered significant (www.bsria.co.uk) (software, blueprints) have been licensed and at home and abroad.
financial losses after turnover fell to £3.5m. This is provide some income as fees. BSRIA does not
BSRIA was formed in the late 1940s, originally as
forcing the organisation to take a more publish in academic journals. C4.3.5 SCI (Steel Construction Institute)
a heating and ventilating research association with
commercial outlook while retaining its
40 founder members to whom it provided The SCI works internationally with 600 industrial
collaborative ethos. Funding profile
information services. The association has evolved, members to develop and promote the use of steel
first becoming more project-oriented, and since Turnover in the last financial year was down to in construction. SCI was founded in 1986 with
Organisational linkages
1989 becoming more entrepreneurial in its £5.4m of which 11% came from members, 22% British Steel funding, following a decision to create
CIRIA has a number of “core members” and a outlook and organisation. At present, it has a from collaborative research, 24% from instrument an institute modelled after TWI. SCI has continued
broader network of 500 subscribers. It sees its core membership of about 750, with a trading solutions, 30% from contract services and to expand and it is today the largest institute of its
members as its main partners. There is a diversified subsidiary (BSRIA Ltd) carrying out most of the information and 13% from worldwide market kind in the world.
membership base including industry, construction research and business activities. intelligence. Income from public sources was less (www.steel-sci.org)
contractors, utilities, government departments and than 20%, at £1.1m last year, and only 46% of
agencies and other institutions. There are also People profile this came from government departments. There is People profile
collaborative links established with the other a downward trend in the income received from
BSRIA has a staff of 120, most of whom are full- SCI has 64 employees, 36 of whom are technical
construction-related research associations through public sources which is expected to continue over
time. Seventy-five percent of all employees are staff, all with university qualifications. Technical
the “Co-Construct” initiative and one-to-one the near future. BSRIA executives expect that the
over 32. About 66% of the staff are university staff are also relatively young, half of them being in
collaborative agreements with other organisations, weight of research within the organisation’s
graduates and more than 20% hold postgraduate their 30s. Staff are reviewed annually and
including the BRE. There are also research links on activities will fall even further, with projects
qualifications. To face the skill shortage problems, developed through training if new skills are
a project-by-project basis with universities becoming smaller and oriented to the solution of
the organisation tends to employ undergraduate required; typically each employee is allowed 5 days
including South Bank, Imperial, Cambridge and specific problems.
students. In addition, BSRIA encourages its staff to per year for training. The institute has several
Reading. CIRIA sees BRE, the universities and some
engage in further education and supports them by visitors from overseas (Russia, Austria, Spain) and it
institutions as their main competitors.
paying fees. It is also involved in the Teaching occasionally receives students.
Company Scheme and receives secondments from
Strengths and weaknesses
overseas members.
CIRIA executives see independence as one of its
main strengths, together with the quality of its
outputs, which are often used as de facto
standards. CIRIA also receives substantial industrial
support and has close contacts with industry (an
Research and dissemination profile compensated by growth in other sources of C4.4 Quality of research RAE data for specific departments was aggregated
income like membership subscriptions and to provide a single score for the Universities
SCI focuses on steel technology and covers areas As part of their internal auditing process, the DTI
publications. SCI also undertakes substantial receiving EPSRC funding. The aggregate RAE score
such as product development, structural design, and DTLR attempt to measure the quality of the
assignments overseas: about 20% of SCI’s work is for each university was made up of the specific
construction best practice and sustainable portfolio of research projects. This process only
carried in the rest of Europe, Russia, India, department scores from the civil engineering and
construction. SCI has no research facilities of its began recently, but a total of 276 recent projects
Malaysia, and Brazil. built environment RAE fields. The RAE scores are
own, and subcontracts works to industry (mainly have already been audited for their quality. This
made on a seven point scale, with seven being the
Corus), universities and the BRE. Its work is applied represents 26% of the total number of DTI
Relationships profile maximum score. Table C8 shows the top 10
and has recently produced 3 patents. research projects analysed in this study and as such
performing universities in the 1996 RAE. It shows
SCI collaborates closely with industry (Corus) and provides a limited view of the quality of DTI funded
SCI produces regular publications for its members that the level of funding received by the top 10
other associations in the UK and abroad. SCI has research. The project audits were carried out
and it participates in conferences and seminars, organisations varies greatly, with Imperial College
worked successfully with universities (mainly internally at the DTI, with projects being evaluated
mainly for members (about 15 per annum), and receiving over £8m in EPSRC funding, compared
Oxford Brooks, Surrey and Imperial), although the on a 20 point scale (20 being the maximum score
presentations are made at conferences. with University of Wales, Swansea, which is ranked
applied approach of SCI activities is not always well attainable). Table C7 shows the average DTI
in joint first place in the RAE, but received under
suited for collaboration with academic internal evaluation scores for the 6 organisations
Funding profile £1million in EPSRC funding during the four
organisations. receiving the largest proportion of DTI/DTLR funds.
year period.
SCI turnover for 2001 was down to £4.2m, The figures show that the average scores for the
The relationship with BRE has proved problematic.
generating £44,000 in profits. Only 11% of its organisations are similar, with CIRIA performing
SCI finds itself competing with the steel section at Table C8: Top 10 Performers in the
income is from the UK government. Even if this best, a score of 12.2, and BSRIA performing worst
BRE, and finds that BRE practices do not seem to 1996 RAE for civil engineering and
stream of funding falls further, SCI executives with an average score of 10.6. However the
seek complementarity with existing resources. built environment and their EPSRC
consider that such reduction would be variance of the BSRIA scores of 24.3, suggest that
Funding Levels
although the organisation has a low average it has
Table C6 summarises key financial data for the a more variable project performance compared to
main IROs. the other lower-ranked organisation (TRADA RAE Amount
Technology with a variance of only 4.9). average (£)
score
Table C6 Key financial data for the BRE and Research Associations Table C7: DTI/DTLR Internal Evaluation University of
Scores for Major Research Organisations Oxford 7.0 1.8m
BRE BSRIA CIRIA SCI TRADA University of
Average Standard Number of
Latest turnover £35m £5.4m £3.5m £4.2 £0.73m Wales Swansea 7.0 987k
Score Deviation projects
evaluated University of
Latest profit (loss) £2m £166k (significant loss) £44k (£43k)
Building Research Salford 6.9 3.6m
Public funding £21.5m* £1.1m £400k £800k £0.25m
Establishment 12.0 2.9 112 Imperial College 6.9 8.1m
(about 65%) (46% from (50% public (50% DTI/ from DTI/
central funds for DTLR, EU). DTLR & EU BSRIA 10.6 4.9 21 University of
government) projects) Reading 6.8 2.5m
CIRIA 12.2 3.0 20
Change in public Reduced from £1.3m Little change About DTI/DTLR income University of
HR Wallingford 11.5 3.8 15
income over about 90% of in 1996 expected the same down from Newcastle
last 5 years income in 1996 24 to 17% Steel Construction upon Tyne 6.7 2.0m
Institute 11.8 2.9 20
Change in public Funding from Downward Little change Expect about DTI/DTLR University of
income over a Wider range trend expected the same income to TRADA Cambridge 6.6 2.5m
next 5 years of public bodies, expected reduce further, Technology Ltd 10.8 2.2 18
University
increasing to continue continuing Total Projects 11.8 3.3 276 College London 6.0 4.1m
private income EU funding
University of
Impact of Reduction in Reduced Loss would be Not fatal, Reduced
Bristol 6.0 2.7m
reduction/loss amount of research activity, catastrophic, replaced research Source: DTI/DTLR Internal Evaluation
of DTI funding research and smaller projects, PII is a by other with Scores & PACT Database University of
increase in fewer in major funding focus on An idea of the quality of university research can be Bradford 6.0 1.3m
consultancy process & scheme streams e.g. short-term, provided through analysis of the Research
environment, subscriptions, industry Assessment Exercise (RAE). This exercise assesses the
loss of marketing funded quality of specific university departments. The last Source: SPRU/EPSRC Database of
intellectual base projects RAE exercise took place in 2001 (results available Construction Research
from: www.hefce.ac.uk), however these results
were not available in time for analysis in this review
Source: Interview dat and we have therefore used those from 1996.
Table C9 shows the RAE data from a different C4.5 Connectivity with research users From the point of view of the academic C4.6 Survey of industrial connectivity
angle by examining the RAE scores for the top 10 institutions, the breadth of their networks (Table
An indicator of the connectivity between academic The survey of industrial users of research was
institutions in terms of EPSRC funding. The table C11) appears related to the levels of funding. In
research establishments and other research designed and developed by the SPRU research
shows that the top 10 universities have RAE scores general, the major universities in terms of the
organisations and industrial actors can be found in team. It attempts to elicit information from
ranging from 6.9 (Imperial College, University of volume of funds received from the EPSRC are also
the structure of the projects funded by the EPSRC. industrial representatives about different
Salford) to 3.8 (University of Leeds). The low score the ones that have established more links with
The EPSRC data on the research projects it funds organisations involved in providing R&D services
for Leeds University suggests that there may not be non-academic collaborators. Although the average
includes project-by-project information on the in the UK. The questionnaire was seen as a
a direct link between EPSRC funding levels and number of collaborators varies across universities,
collaborative links between the universities mechanism to assess the industrial connectivity
RAE scores – or that there were anomalies in the the requirement to have non-academic partners in
receiving the funds and their collaborators in to different parts of the UK research base. In
ways in which different departments entered their the research projects leads to a broad relationship
industry and elsewhere. These collaborative order to ensure some degree of comparison,
submissions to the exercise. This is further between successful universities and those that
relationships provide an indicator of connectivity the questionnaire is based on a consistent listing
highlighted by the fact that only two of the top 10 have established the most collaborative links.
between the university-based research system and of research areas as the database analysis
funded universities find themselves among the top
non-academic users and practitioners. (discussed in Section 3.1). The questionnaire was
10 Universities by RAE scores (Table C8). Table C11: Top 10 EPSRC Collaborating
piloted on a group of members of the Reading
The number of construction-related EPSRC projects Academic Institutions
Construction Forum.
Table C9: Top 10 Institutions by Revenue for which adequate data on industrial and
from the EPSRC and their RAE Scores government collaborators exists is 572 (in the 1997 The total sample size of the questionnaire was 101
Number of Number of Average
– 2001 period). In these projects a total of 82 and the questionnaire was sent by mail to all
collaborating projects number of
academic research institutions collaborate with links with collaborators
respondents with a postage-paid business reply
RAE score Amount (£) 1019 industrial and government collaborators. envelope. Respondents were given the option of
non-academic per project
Imperial College 6.9 8.1m Table C10 shows the main collaborators and organisations returning the questionnaire by post or fax and were
indicates that an engineering firm, Arup, is the also able to request an electronic version which
University of Sheffield 5.3 7.4m most active industrial partner in EPSRC funded Loughborough could be returned by e-mail. The sample was
construction research (65 projects). The BRE University 187 37 5.1 composed of a list of names provided by the DTI and
University of
Nottingham
follows with 39 projects. Although it is the largest Imperial College included R&D managers at many of the leading UK
5.6 6.3m
receiver of DTI/DTLR funds, the BRE has a relatively of Science, construction, design and engineering firms. Some
Loughborough lighter involvement with the research capabilities members of client organisations and architectural
Tech & Med 147 43 3.4
University 5.9 4.9m residing at universities. The most active departments were also included in the sample
collaborators are construction engineering University of population. Although not representative of the
University of
companies, with some participation from Nottingham 131 41 3.2 entire industry, the sample did compose many of the
Southampton 5.0 4.6m
government agencies. different active players and firms in the industry,
University of
University College including the largest organisations and companies
Sheffield 112 41 2.7
London 6.0 4.1m Table C10: Top 10 Industrial Collaborators with the largest R&D facilities.
with the EPSRC University of Leeds 108 19 5.7
University of Salford 6.9 3.7m Of the 101 questionnaires sent, 38 were returned
University of Salford 93 20 4.7 completed (a response rate of 37.6%). Several
University of Leeds 3.8 3.4m
Number questionnaires were returned unanswered since
University of
Cranfield University 5.5 100k of EPSRC the people involved had moved on into other
Projects Cambridge 91 23 4.0 positions or occupations since the database of
Heriot-Watt names was completed. The respondent profile
OVE Arup Partnership 65 Cranfield University 83 18 4.6
University 5.5 2.9m matched the sample population profile. Several
Building Research Establishment 39 Heriot-Watt other respondents made written replies without
Others N/A 53.1m
University 78 15 5.2 completing the questionnaire.
WS Atkins 33
University College The questionnaire focused on the importance of
AMEC 30 London 77 15 5.1 different areas of research for industrial
Source: SPRU/EPSRC Database of
Construction Research DETR (e.g. LINK) 28 organisations. Respondents were asked to assess
the importance of the seven categories of research
Taylor Woodrow Construction 24
for their organisation. They were also asked to
Source: SPRU/EPSRC Database of
Environment Agency 23 Construction Research assess the importance of the five leading research
organisations in the UK (BRE, CIRIA, TRADA,
HR Wallingford 23
BSRIA, SCI), universities and private sector
CORUS 22 consultancies for meeting their research and
technical consultancy needs. The list of the five
Mott Macdonald 17
main research organisations was based on an
analysis of the current distribution of DTI funding
under the Partners in Innovation (PII) programme. It
Source: SPRU/EPSRC Database of focuses on the five largest receivers of DTI/DTLR
Construction Research
funding from 1997 to 2001 in the PII programme.
A key question focused on the research capabilities C4.6.1 Research capabilities Table C13 presents the percentage of respondents
of different research organisations in different who indicated that there were insufficient research
Table C12 explores the areas of strength in
areas of research. In particular, respondents were capabilities in the university system. The findings
research capabilities among UK research
asked to indicate whether there were areas of here mirror the results of the previous areas of
organisations for different research areas. The
strengths and areas of insufficient research strength. The area with the highest number of
table is organised by size of organisation(s). The
capabilities for each of the different research respondents indicating insufficient capabilities was
industrial respondents indicated that universities
organisations. The responses to areas of management processes (26%). This was followed by
were strongest at research on information and
insufficient research capabilities were taken to mechanical and electrical systems (21%).
communication technologies. Over 59% of
mean that there was a need to develop greater A small percentage of respondents indicated
respondents indicated that there are significant
capabilities in these areas. On the survey where insufficient capabilities for all other areas of research.
research capabilities in this area in universities in
there were no responses, such as neither an
the UK. The second major area of university
indication of strength nor of weakness, by
strength was structures at 55% Table C13: Areas of insufficient research capability among UK research organisations (n=38)
industrial respondents, this was taken to mean that
of respondents. Less than half of respondents
there was no pressing need to develop capabilities
indicated areas of strong research capabilities in
for this institution in this area.
materials and components (42%), management Universities BRE CIRIA TRADA BSRIA SCI Private
processes (39%), external environment (29%), Consultancies
and internal environment (26%). Few respondents Information and
felt there was significant strength in mechanical
communication
and electrical systems (13%) inside the UK
technologies 11% 24% 21% 13% 21% 11% 8%
university system.
Materials and
Table C12: Areas of strength in research capability in the UK research organisations (n=38) components 16% 5% 11% 3% 5% 3% 21%
Management
processes 26% 21% 8% 11% 13% 8% 11%
Universities BRE CIRIA TRADA BSRIA SCI Private
Consultancies Structures 8% 8% 11% 5% 16% 0% 11%
Information and Mechanical and
communication electrical systems 21% 16% 11% 11% 5% 8% 13%
technologies 59% 5% 16% 3% 8% 3% 43%
External
Materials and environment 13% 5% 5% 8% 5% 8% 5%
components 42% 71% 26% 42% 26% 42% 16%
Internal
Management environment 11% 11% 13% 8% 8% 5% 16%
processes 39% 18% 42% 0% 0% 0% 29%
Structures 55% 45% 13% 34% 0% 47% 32%

Note: Figures refer to the percentage of respondents indicating research weaknesses on the questionnaire.
Mechanical and
electrical systems 13% 16% 5% 0% 55% 0% 34%
External In summary, industrial respondents indicated that The areas of research strength in the BRE, as seen by
environment 29% 47% 37% 0% 13% 0% 24% universities were strong in information technology, industrial respondents, were materials and components.
but weak in management processes and mechanical Over 71% of respondents indicated that there was
Internal
and electrical systems. The relatively low scores for considerable research capability in the BRE in this area of
environment 26% 29% 8% 0% 18% 0% 18% universities for management processes were the research. The second and third areas of BRE research
somewhat surprising. It might reflect the lack of strength were external environment (47%) and
competency in construction management and other structures (45%) respectively. Few respondents indicated
built environment related departments in BRE strength in information and communication
Note: Figures refer to the percentage of respondents indicating research strength on the questionnaire. management. It also might reflect the poor technologies (5%), mechanical and electrical systems
relationship between construction firms and (16%) and management processes (18%).
traditional management schools in the UK.
These findings are mirrored in Table C13. The data The main areas of research capability in TRADA C4.6.2 Meeting research needs In the survey of industrial connectivity, we asked
shows that areas of insufficient BRE strength were were materials and components (42%) and respondents to indicate the general importance of
Table C14 explores the importance of future areas
information and communication technologies structures (34%). No industrial respondents external organisations in helping them to meet
of research for UK construction industry
(24%), management processes (21%), and indicated significant research capability for four their organisations’ research needs. The responses
representatives. The highest scoring area was
mechanical and electrical systems (16%). Few of the seven research areas. This indicates that show that 59% of the sample thought external
information and communication technologies.
respondents found significant weaknesses in the TRADA research capabilities are highly organisations were important or very important in
This research area was rated as important or very
other areas of research in the BRE. concentrated, or, at least, are seen to be so by meeting their research needs (Table C15).
important by 78% of all respondents. The second
industry. Few respondents indicated that there
The results from both sets of information most important area of research was management
were areas of insufficient research capability in Table C15: The importance of different
indicate that the BRE has a strong research processes, with 73% of respondents indicating
TRADA. The highest scoring area of insufficient organisations for meeting industrial
capability in materials and components, external important or very important. Materials and
capability was information and communication research needs (n=38)
environment and structures. The BRE was seen by components (62%), external environment (58%)
technologies. The relatively low scores for
industrial respondents to be weak in information and structures (50%) followed these two areas.
weaknesses indicated that many industrial % of Mean Std.
and communication technologies and The research area receiving the lowest number of
respondents did not feel that TRADA needed to Respondents1 Deviation
management processes. scores was internal environment (42%), followed
develop capabilities in these areas. It was taken for
by mechanical and electrical systems (47%). External
The main area of research capability for CIRIA was granted that there were few capabilities and that
seen to be management processes (42%). This was these capabilities need not be improved. organisations in
Table C14: Importance of future areas of general 59% 3.7 1.0
followed by strength in external environment
The results of the survey for BSRIA indicated research for the UK construction industry
(29%) and materials and components (26%). Few
considerable strength in mechanical and electrical representatives (n=38) Universities 42% 3.2 1.2
respondents indicated CIRIA had research
systems (55%). A modest level of responses in
capability in mechanical and electrical systems, BRE 45% 3.1 1.2
materials and components (26%) and internal
(5%), internal environment (8%), and structures Research areas % of Mean Std.
environment (18%) followed this score. No CIRIA 59% 3.4 1.3
(13%). The areas of insufficient research capability Respondents1 Deviation
respondents indicated that BSRIA had
follow a similar pattern to the research strengths TRADA 14% 2.3 1.2
competencies in management processes and Information and
(Table 13). Again industrial respondents indicated
structures. Areas of insufficient strength in BSRIA communication BSRIA 42% 2.9 1.4
weakness in information and communication
were information and communication technologies 78% 4.0 1.1
technologies (21%). The number of firms Steel Construction
technologies (21%) and structures (16%). The
indicating insufficient strength for all other areas of Materials Institute 15% 2.5 1.1
scores for other areas of research were modest
research were modest (between 13% and 5%). and components 62% 3.8 1.1
(between 5% and 13%). Private sector
Industrial respondents’ views of research Management consultancies
The competencies of the SCI were highly
capabilities in CIRIA highlighted the growing processes 73% 4.1 0.9 and firms 33% 2.9 1.3
concentrated in foundations and structures (47%)
competency of CIRIA in management processes.
and materials and components (42%). No other Structures
The higher number of respondents indicating the 50% 3.4 1.3
areas of research were seen to be present by
importance of CIRIA for management processes, Mechanical and 1 Percentage of respondents indicating important (4)
industrial respondents. Areas of insufficient
rather than universities, indicates the CIRIA has or very important (5) on the survey.
strength for the SCI were information and electrical systems 47% 3.3 1.1
developed an ability to work closely with industrial
communication technologies (11%). The scores for Respondents were then asked to indicate the
firms on management problems directly related to External
other areas of research were low. importance of each external research organisation
their areas of interest. However, these findings Environment 58% 3.7 1.2
should be placed in context. Less than half of the For private consultancies, the area of greatest in meeting their organisation’s research needs. The
Internal data shows that CIRIA was the most important
sample indicated research capability for CIRIA in research capability was information and
environment 42% 3.2 1.2 external research organisation in meeting the
this area of research. The data may also indicate communication technologies (43%). The next
the need for an institution, such as CIRIA, to strongest areas of research were mechanical and research needs of industrial respondents. The BRE
repackage and facilitate management processes electrical systems (34%) and structures (32%). was the next highest scoring external research
inside industrial organisations, a role not currently The lowest scoring areas of research capability 1 Percentage of respondents indicating important organisation. Universities and BSRIA both scored
played by UK universities. This role of bridging were materials and components (16%) and (4) or very important (5) on the survey. 42% of respondents. TRADA and the SCI were
between practice and research on management internal environment (18%). In terms of areas of indicated as important by only 14% and 15% of
The standard deviation of the responses reveals
processes highlights the unique role of institutions, insufficient research strength, materials and respondents. Private sector consultancies were
that the highest level of agreement among the
such as CIRIA, in shaping and supporting the components received the highest score (21%). It seen as important by close to a third of the sample
responses was over the importance of
development of capabilities inside the sector. was followed by internal environment (16%). No of industrial firms.
management processes as an area of research.
other areas were indicated to have insufficient The level of disagreement was greatest for the Some care is required in interpreting these figures,
research capability. importance of structures. The standard deviations but they do suggest that organisations such as
in all other research areas were similar. CIRIA and BSRIA, although small in relative terms
of funding, do provide an important range of
research services to the UK construction industry.
The low scores for both the BRE and universities
are unexpected. They could be accounted for by
problems in industry-university or industry-
BRE interactions.
C4.6.3 Meeting technical consultancy needs C4.6.4 Research collaborators Table C17: Research organisations listed C4.7 Higher education and skills
as collaborators by industrial
The survey of industrial users focuses on the In the last question of the survey, we asked If UK construction research is to thrive in the long-
respondents (n=38)
importance of different organisations in providing respondents to list the three main research term it will need to recruit bright, well-trained
technical consultancy to industry. The survey organisations with whom their organisation people from a wide range of disciplines into firms
indicates that relatively few industrial firms need collaborates. The responses indicate that the most Research organisations in the UK Number and research institutions. Evidence from the IROs
external organisations in general for technical common collaborator was CIRIA (Table C17). of listings already indicates problems in recruitment. Analysis
consultancy. Only 33% of the sample indicated CIRIA was followed by the BRE. The number of of the numbers of people entering higher
CIRIA 18
that external organisations were important or very universities mentioned was relatively high, but education courses in built environment disciplines
important to their organisation. these patterns of collaborations were fairly widely BRE 16 provides an indication of the likelihood that these
dispersed across the UK university sector. No single problems will worsen. In addition, some of the
The most important source of technical BSRIA 7
university was cited by more than six respondents. respondents to the survey of UK industrialists made
consultancy was seen to be private sector firms
The highest scoring university was Salford, Salford University 6 disparaging comments about the connectivity and
and consultancies (44%). This finding is consistent
followed by Loughborough and Southampton. relevance of university research:
with expectations, given the role of these TRADA 4
There were a wide variety of other organisations
organisations in providing these services in the “Universities are generally inaccessible and
cited by respondents, including HR Wallingford Loughborough University 3
market. The second most important actor in the unapproachable to professionals and have
and the Transport Research Laboratory at Leeds
system was seen to be CIRIA (34%), followed by University of Southampton 3 little hands on contact with us on projects.
University. The considerable variety in the types
BRE (31%) and BSRIA (28%). Only 19% of This must change – we need a closer ongoing
and names of organisations that UK industrial Transport Research Laboratory 2
respondents indicated that universities were an working relationship between the academic
respondents work with indicates the need for
important source of technical consultancy. The University of Warwick 2 research world and the practitioners on the
research funding to be widely distributed across
scores for TRADA and the SCI were also modest. ground. It’s all a symptom of the classic British
different types of research organisations operating University of Manchester 2
disease – research and innovation takes too
both in the construction sector and elsewhere.
Table C16: The importance of external Steel Construction Institute 2 long to filter through to industry, by which
organisations in meeting industrial time Germany, the USA, have already done it.”
University of Reading 2
technical consultancy needs (n=38)
“Architectural education within British
HR Wallingford 2
universities is now generally very weak – it is
% of Mean Std. Advantica 1 too arty-farty/design theory led. Architects
Respondents1 Deviation are their own worst enemies – but should be
De Montfort University 1 leading innovation on the ground, with help
External from universities.”
Cambridge University 1
organisations in
general 33% 3.3 1.0 University of Surrey 1 A critical mass of qualified personnel is usually
required if research is to be carried out and
Universities 19% 2.7 1.0 Tavistock Institute 1 exploited. Most construction firms and
BRE 31% 2.7 1.3 Zethus Centre 1 professional engineering design organisations are
very small. Many are preoccupied with day-to-day
CIRIA 34% 2.6 1.3 Concrete Society 1 activities and survival and are therefore not
TRADA 13% 2.2 1.1 European Construction Institute 1 motivated to engage in longer-term research
activities. Though some may appreciate the desire
BSRIA 28% 2.7 1.3 Leicester University 1 and need to innovate, their size often makes it
Steel Construction WSP Environmental 1 difficult for them to engage in longer-term, formal
R&D processes in a structured way. For example,
Institute 16% 2.5 1.1 University of Bath 1 of the 160,000 contractors operating in the UK,
Private sector University College London 1 fewer than 20,000 employ people with higher
consultancies and technical qualifications and only around 200
firms 44% 3.4 1.0 Environment Agency 1 employ 5 or more people with such qualifications
Oxford Brookes University 1 (Gann, 1991).
Ceram Building Technology 1 There is considerable concern that the supply of

1 Percentage of respondents indicating professional skills required in the production and
important (4) or very important (5) on the survey. Construct Association 1 maintenance of the built environment has not
Health and safety labs 1 matched the changing needs of the construction
industries (Andrews and Derbyshire, 1993). A
report commissioned by the Ove Arup Foundation
in 1998 showed that there had been a steep
Note: SPRU was mentioned by a number of
decline in the number of students applying to join
respondents, but we have removed these citations from
the table because of the dangers of a response bias courses related to the Built Environment (Gann
given SPRU’s role in conducting the survey. and Salter, 1999).
The report also showed that new types of skills Despite efforts to analyse and cope with these Beyond the total employment figures, it is useful to It is therefore important to understand the overall
were being required to tackle issues related, for problems, it is arguable that the failure in the understand changes in the number of students situation in student numbers and to link these
instance, to environmental protection and supply of skills to match emerging demands in the entering and leaving UK universities for careers in patterns of change to larger issues in the
working on contaminated land – Table C18. sector has become worse during the 1990s. the industry. Numbers of students are likely to have development of research capability for the UK
a profound impact on future research capabilities construction industry. It would be helpful to have a
Table C18: New skills and competencies through two main mechanisms: historical record of students entering and leaving
UK universities, yet it is difficult to trace the trends
• The training of skilled problem solvers has been
of student numbers because the datasets changed
New specialist skills New general and integrative competencies shown to be the main mechanism for
between 1993 and 1994. The data from
transferring research into practice, and
Brief development and definition Environmental planning polytechnics and universities in the pre-1994
therefore, the most important link between
Transport planning period are not directly comparable to post-1994
Design management publicly funded research and industrial practice
data, when the binary divide between polytechnics
Production planning, assembly Space planning, syntax and (Salter and Martin, 2001). A fall in student
and universities was ended (UCAS, 1998).
changing working patterns numbers could indicate a decline in the
and installation management However, the available data suggests that home
benefits of publicly funded research, as the
Business Analysis applications for civil engineering rose between
Specialist project finance main mechanism for dissemination and
Dynamics and complex systems analysis 1988 and 1993, and started to decline in the
Specialist legal advice application of research results weakens.
middle of the 1990s (Engineering Council, 1998).
Building economics and life cycle analysis • The number of students enrolled in UK Home applications in civil engineering reached a
Risk assessment and management
Team building, co-locating, universities affects the capacity of the peak of 3,265 students in 1992. It has since
Safety management
concurrent engineering university sector to perform research. Research declined to 1820 in 1998.
Supply-chain management in the UK is supported both through direct
Partnering and supply-chain management
Procurement and logistics research grants to individuals and groups in
Interdisciplinary skills to integrate departments, and through core teaching
Instrumentation and control systems engineering and social science expertise funding based on a complex formula that
Non-destructive testing Understanding users and regulatory frameworks includes the number of students enrolled in a
Facilities management department. A decline in student numbers can
Delivery of integrated products and services
have a serious impact on the amount of
Energy management
research that is performed in a research area.
Water management For example, in extreme cases, it can mean the
Building physics closure of whole departments and the shift of
lecturers into new departments and
Materials science
subject areas.
Contaminated land engineering
Geotechnical engineering
Structural engineering
Façade engineering and design
Mechanical and electrical engineering
Heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
Manufacturing engineering
Wind, seismic and vibration engineering
Fire engineering
Lighting design
Acoustical engineering
Simulation and modelling
Computational fluid dynamics
IT systems and data management
Documentation control
Machinery operation and maintenance
Environmental planning
Source: (Gann and Salter, 2000)
Similar declining trends are reflected in more most of the falls taking place during the last years Table C20: Acceptances to undergraduate courses in the built environment, 1994-2000
recent data from UCAS on the number of of the 1990s. As the number of students in civil
applications from 1994 to 2000. The data shows a engineering falls, several civil engineering
43% decline in applications to civil engineering departments are threatened with closure. The 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 % Change
courses from 1994 to 2000. This is a precipitous decline in building and construction students has Civil engineering 3,453 3,347 3,218 3,143 2,869 2,624 2,493 -28%
fall and in part reflects an overall shift in been less dramatic, but it is still substantial at 10%.
applications out of engineering disciplines to other The only area bucking the trend is architecture, Architecture 1,972 2,159 2,174 2,368 2,311 2,333 2,340 19%
fields of study, such as design studies and where there was an increase of 19% from 1994 to Building and
biological sciences. The decline in the number of 2000 in the number of acceptances to UK courses.
construction 2,367 2,718 2,430 2,498 2,345 2,211 2,131 -10%
applications for courses in building and Further, these declining patterns contrast with the
construction (including surveying, housing studies, rise in the number of applications and acceptance Total Built
construction management and other courses on at UK universities. At a time when the number of Environment 7,792 8,224 7,822 8,009 7,525 7,168 6,964 -11%
the built environment) was even more dramatic. students was increasing dramatically, fewer
Total All Subjects 247,567 264,738 273,032 308,236 302,683 307,677 311,635 26%
From 1994 to 2000 there were 45% fewer students were engaging in courses related to the
applicants to UK courses in building and built environment. The worrisome feature for the
construction. The fall in applicants to Architecture Built Environment is that the decline in interest in
degrees was less sharp but still significant: a fall of construction-related courses took place Source: UCAS
11% between 1994 and 2000 (Table C19). simultaneously with a dramatic growth in
university numbers. In 2000, the general growth in With the steep decline in the number of Overall, the acceptance/applications ratio has
It must be noted that if the rates of decline were to applications, a higher proportion of applicants to grown for the whole of the UK system; yet, the
student numbers seems to have hit a plateau, with
continue into the future, the number of students in courses in the Built Environment are being accepted patterns for construction-related courses are much
a slight levelling off in the total number of
the built environment would rapidly collapse. By into courses. For example, in 1994, 59% of those more pronounced. While, in 1994 the ratio in the
applications and acceptances in the UK university
2009 the number of applicants to civil engineering who applied to courses in building and construction Built Environment courses was similar to the overall
system. Whether in a period of stagnation in
courses would have fallen to 0, while the last were accepted into the course; by 2000, this figure average (63% to 61%), in 2000 a significant
student numbers, construction-related courses will
applicant to building and construction courses had reached 97%, indicating that almost every difference had emerged (87% ratio of acceptance
be able to attract more students remains an open
would enter university by 2012. So far, the student who applies is accepted. The figures for civil in the built environment compared with an
question. Recent experiences and the poor
declining trend line shows little signs of bottoming engineering have also changed markedly from 68% average of 71%).
reputation of the industry as an employer do not
out (Table C19). in 1994 to 86% in 2000. Even in architecture, a field
bode well for the capacity of these disciplines to
The decline in applications to courses in the built attract growing numbers of students against a with only a slight decline in applications, the rate of
environment is reflected in the number of general background of stagnation or decline in the acceptances over applications has increased
acceptances. In civil engineering, the number of total number of applications. significantly from 60% to 81%.
acceptances fell by 28% from 1994 to 2002, with
Table C21: Acceptances by application in undergraduate courses in the built environment,
1994 to 2000
Table C19: Applications in built environment courses, 1994 to 2000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Civil engineering 68% 74% 76% 83% 83% 85% 86%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 % Change Architecture 60% 67% 70% 74% 77% 83% 81%
Civil engineering 5,104 4,538 4,207 3,766 3,442 3,080 2,905 -43% Building and
construction 59% 70% 75% 89% 88% 93% 97%
Architecture 3,269 3,237 3,097 3,179 3,004 2,797 2,900 -11%
Total Built
Building and
Environment 63% 71% 74% 82% 83% 87% 87%
construction 4,006 3,860 3,232 2,803 2,671 2,369 2,205 -45%
Total All Subjects 61% 63% 65% 67% 68% 69% 71%
Total Built
Environment 12,379 11,635 10,536 9,748 9,117 8,246 8,010 -35% Difference
between all
Total All Subjects 405,117 419,442 418,400 458,781 446,457 442,931 442,028 9%
subject and
built environment -2% -8% -9% -15% -15% -17% -16%
Source: UCAS
Source: UCAS
Although this data would suggest a decline in the architecture is also encouraging. In 1994, To sum up, the number of students in The intake of foreign students has helped to
quality of students, data on the GCSE scores of architecture had roughly the same number of construction-related disciplines is declining, dampen the impact of the decline in UK-based
students accepted to Built Environment courses students scoring 21 or more points on their GCSEs although students entering courses in civil applications to Built Environment education
from 1994 to 2000 presents a more mixed picture as all other subject groups, but by 2000 the engineering and architecture exhibit high courses, especially in civil engineering. From 1994
(Table C22). Since 1994, the number of students percentage had increased to 54%, a full 10% standards of educational performance. This to 2000, the percentage of foreign students in the
accepted who achieved 21 or more GCSE course above the national average for all other subject suggests that the overall decline in student UK Built Environment student population has
points increased from 31% to 50% of the total groups. The number of students accepted with less numbers has not yet influenced the quality of the increased significantly. In 1994, foreign students
class. In 1994, the percentage of students with than 10 points has also remained low and below student intake in civil engineering and architecture. represented 17% of the total number of
over 21 GCSE points accepted into civil the average for all other subject areas. This likely In fact, the overall decline in the number of applications, by 2000 the percentage had
engineering was slightly below the average for all increase in the quality of civil engineering students students in civil engineering may have led to the increased to 23%. The area of largest growth in
subject groups (31% to 36%), but by 2000, civil took place in the late 1990s and may reflect closure of poorly performing departments, thus foreign student numbers took place in civil
engineering was above the average for all other changes in the way engineering courses are helping explain the relatively high scores of the engineering, where the share of foreign students
subject groups (50% to 44%). Other indicators accredited and developed. Instead, in building and remaining applicants. rose from 20% to 35% from 1994 to 2000.
point in a similar direction. The percentage of construction the percentage of students with 21 or
students accepted with less than 10 GCSE points more GSCE is far below the average: only 8% in
Table C23: Percentage of overseas students as a share of
fell from 18% in 1994 to 8% in 2000. This 1994, and 13% in 2000 still well below the 44%
total students applying to built environment courses, 1994 to 2000
percentage compares favourably to overall trends average. These figures suggest that the quality of
in other subject groups. In 1994, 18% of all entrants to courses in building and construction
students had less than 10 points, a percentage that has been low in the past and has remained so over 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
felt to 13% by 2000. Similarly, the picture for the past seven years.
Table C22: Main qualifications of home applicants accepted to Architecture 23% 31% 34% 36% 34% 31% 27%
engineering and built environment courses, 1994 to 2000
Building and
construction 11% 15% 18% 17% 14% 14% 12%
1994 1996 1998 2000
Total Built
21 and 20 to 10 or 21 and 20 to 10 or 21 and 20 to 10 or 21 and 20 to 10 or
Environment 19% 25% 29% 32% 29% 27% 26%
over 11 fewer over 11 fewer over 11 fewer over 11 fewer
General
engineering 34% 32% 34% 40% 31% 29% 43% 30% 27% 41% 35% 24%
Civil engineering 31% 51% 18% 37% 50% 13% 44% 45% 12% 50% 42% 8%
Source: UCAS
Mechanical
engineering 36% 45% 19% 46% 41% 14% 50% 41% 10% 51% 40% 9% Table C24: Percentage of overseas students as a share of
Aeronautical total students accepted into built environment courses, 1994 to 2000
engineering 45% 40% 15% 55% 32% 13% 59% 30% 11% 62% 29% 10%
Electronic 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

engineering 33% 44% 22% 41% 42% 17% 41% 43% 16% 43% 43% 14%
Production and/or
Architecture 19% 25% 28% 30% 30% 27% 23%
Manufacturing
engineering 23% 51% 26% 24% 54% 23% 31% 51% 18% 34% 52% 14% Building and
construction 10% 14% 14% 13% 11% 11% 10%
Chemical
engineering 44% 44% 12% 56% 34% 10% 57% 33% 9% 61% 33% 6% Total Built
Environment 17% 22% 26% 28% 27% 25% 23%
Architecture 37% 51% 12% 46% 43% 11% 49% 42% 9% 54% 37% 9%
Building/
Construction 8% 51% 42% 12% 53% 35% 11% 55% 34% 13% 55% 31%
Total subject
Source: UCAS
groups 36% 46% 18% 36% 46% 18% 32% 48% 20% 44% 43% 13%
Source: UCAS
The number of women applications and somewhat higher at 24% in 2000, unchanged Table C27: Number of students enrolled in higher education in the UK
acceptances in Built Environment courses remains since 1994. Overall, the percentage of women has
well below the averages for all other subject remained stable or fallen, signalling that the
groups. Women represented only 10% of the number of women students has fallen in line with 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 % Change
applications to civil engineering courses and 8% in the reductions in male students. It is clear that
Civil engineering 18,272 17,319 16,167 15,100 -17%
building and construction – the level of greater efforts will be required to attract women
acceptances is naturally higher at 15%. The into courses in the Built Environment.Source: UCAS Architecture 12,800 13,406 13,656 13,300 4%
number of women applicants to architecture is
Building and
construction 20,097 18,696 17,985 17,160 -15%
Table C25: Percentage of women applicants to built environment courses, 1994 to 2000
Biological
sciences 81,750 87,987 89,338 90,740 11%
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Design studies 40,672 42,819 44,535 44,390 9%
Engineering
Architecture 24% 28% 30% 32% 35% 20% 24% (no civil) 115,769 113,607 112,546 108,810 -6%
Building and All Subjects 1,756,179 1,800,064 1,845,757 1,856,330 6%
construction 9% 11% 11% 11% 12% 9% 8%
Total Built
Environment 14% 16% 17% 19% 21% 12% 14% Source: HESA at www.hesa.ac.uk
C5 INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON
This section reviews the results of a small-scale There was also a better response to questions
Source: UCAS
survey of international construction experts to about capabilities in universities than those in
identify UK strengths and weaknesses in independent research institutes or private
construction research, changes over time, and the companies. Some respondents felt unable to make
Table C26: Percentage of women in acceptances to built environment courses, 1994 to 2000 implications for future government support of any judgement about whether British capabilities
construction research. had improved or declined in specific areas during
the past five years. It would appear that
A questionnaire survey instrument was used to
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 international experts’ difficulty with completing
obtain the perspectives of international experts on
the questionnaire arises from the fragmentation of
Civil engineering 13% 15% 15% 16% 15% 15% 15% recent developments in UK construction research
construction research into numerous fields and
competencies. Questionnaires were e-mailed to
Architecture 27% 30% 30% 34% 37% 37% 36% sub-fields. Most experts have knowledge of the
125 international experts chosen from
UK’s construction research capabilities in their own
Building and membership lists of CIB (Conseil International du
specific field, but little knowledge of other research
construction 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 14% 14% Bâtiment – International Council for Building),
fields relevant to construction.
ENBRI (European Network of Building Research
Total Built
Institutes) and ENCORD (European Network of The very low response rate means that the following
Environment 16% 18% 18% 21% 21% 22% 22%
Construction Research and Development) and results should be treated with extreme caution. They
Total All Subjects 50% 51% 52% 52% 53% 54% 52% members of the international academic community provide only a rough indicator of views and
selected from the editorial boards of Building attitudes. As expected from a small-scale study, little
Research and Information and Construction consensus emerged from the responses, except for
Source: UCAS
Management and Economics. Two reminders were the view that US universities had the strongest ICT
sent to non-respondents. and materials research capabilities. A majority of
Given these patterns of applications and 28% decline between 1996/97 and 1999/00) and respondents also indicated that Finland had the
acceptances, the decline in total enrolment in UK There was a low response rate to the
civil engineering (a 21% decline during the same strongest ICT research capabilities in independent
courses in civil engineering and building and questionnaire, with only 10 returns, several of
period). Part-time postgraduate courses are the research institutes.
construction is hardly surprising. The exception is in which were only partially completed. An additional
only group where the number of students in
architecture, where the number of students 8 respondents wrote to explain they could not Assessments about UK research capabilities –
building and construction has grown, showing that
enrolled has increased since 1996. The fall in complete the questionnaire because they lacked whether in universities, independent research
many of the programmes offered at the
enrolment is particularly sharp in undergraduate sufficient knowledge. institutes or private companies – were diverse. In
postgraduate level have been successful in
full-time building and construction students (a most research areas, respondents indicated that UK
reaching out to practitioners. In general, questions about UK capabilities in
research capabilities either tended towards
existing areas were better completed than those
international leadership or followed international
about capabilities in important emerging areas.
trends. However, in every field except structures, at
least one respondent judged that UK university
research attained international leadership. This may
be explained by the respondent who noted that:
“There are hot spots in universities in the “There seems to be too many players Respondents identified a wide range of future Respondents were also asked to assess whether UK
UK, where international standing is high. competing and some form of networks research areas that they believed would be research institutes were adequately equipped with
However, it is too hit and miss, with under- (virtual centres of excellence) with more increasingly important in the next five years. In the up-to-date research instruments, equipment
funded facilities the legacy of political specific mandates may accelerate knowledge following list, the areas in bold type are those and/or facilities. Two respondents who judged they
complacency. The science and engineering production and transfer to the industry. where the UK is considered to have strong research were not adequately equipped identified the new
base within the construction sector is …Again looking from outside, the role of capabilities – Table C28. equipment required:
generally weak as a result.” various traditional players (professional
“Materials labs, various other labs and testing
associations), new emerging groups on Table C28: Possible future research topics
Another strength of UK university research is facilities.”
regional and national level etc. are not clear. identified by international experts
its links with industry. In the words of two
This may give comfort to many since it slows “For structures: large-scale testing facilities
respondents:
the rate of change but is also slow. More and equipment.
“Looking from outside, UK research base radical, focused action may be required, but is
Construction to facilitate For ICT: powerful VR technology and
seems to have established a very sound it politically do-able?”
the needs of ageing population simulators.
base of cooperation with the industry in
many sectors.” Smart buildings For embedded technology: demonstration
laboratories.
“Universities do an excellent job cooperating Underground structures & infrastructure
with the private sector.” For sustainable, energy-efficient construction:
Soil mechanics and geotechnics
demonstration laboratories.
Diverse assessments were also made about
Infrastructure renewal/rehabilitation
research capabilities in the UK’s independent For internal (indoor) climate: full-scale
research institutes and private companies. At least Rehabilitation of towns laboratories, equipped with sensors and
one respondent judged that UK independent measuring equipment.”
Integration technology/management
research institutes attained international leadership
The results of the survey suggest that UK
in every research area except the external Process integration using IT
construction research capabilities do not achieve
environment. Similarly, at least one of the
IT systems (embedded systems, international leadership, except for “islands of
assessments of private companies’ research
ubiquitous computing, e-business) excellence”. Weakness in some areas may be
capabilities considered they were international
related to lack of investment in new facilities and
leaders, except in the area of structures. The Simulation and virtual reality
equipment. There is a need for decisions to be
cluster of respondents who considered that UK ICT
Materials made about where the UK wants to position itself
research attained international leadership in both
in construction research, the areas it wants to
independent research institutes and private Construction process re-engineering
prioritise, and those where it is acceptable for
companies may indicate UK research strength in
Industry’s performance improvement leadership to be taken by other countries. Such
this area. This view is supported by several
decisions could be guided by the views presented
respondents who consider UK research capabilities General use of technology above about the UK’s current and emerging
in ICT to have improved in the past five years.
Facilities management and strengths. In addition, there appears to be a
Responses also suggest that there have been
facility automation need to decide whether independent research
significant improvements in research on the
institutes and university departments should play
external environment, and some improvement in Construction in developing countries mainly competitive or complementary roles in
management processes and the internal
Recyclability providing the knowledge, the trained personnel
environment. One respondent tried to give an
and the research infrastructure required for
overview of the UK’s research capabilities. He said: Environmental and energy management innovation by industry.
“It is very difficult to assess the capabilities as Safety (covering structural safety,
a whole. On average, I would state that UK
safety at work, safety
construction research is very visible and active
against crime and crime prevention etc.)
everywhere. The UK expertise seems to have a
very wide market globally. However, how
much that contributes to the competitiveness
of the industry in the UK is totally another
matter. I sense that in the UK the gap between
research and successful innovation is far
greater than in most developed countries,
although very positive, world class examples
of companies such as BAA can be found.”
Another suggested that the main problem with UK
research could be its fragmentation, and made a
suggestion about how that could be remedied:
C6 CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE C6.2 Government research requirements Conducting research is often an entry ticket to expertise, and on the long-term accumulation of
international networks (SPRU, 1996). Thus, even knowledge needs to be questioned (Seaden, 1997). It
This section of our report presents a number of Government, as a client and through its roles in
modest R&D efforts can help open up access to world seems unlikely that short-term contract researchers in
issues for future consideration emerging from the developing regulations and promoting higher
frontier research. The construction research discipline-based university departments will be able
study. We have not attempted to draw conclusions standards, needs to be able to call upon
community and its funders therefore need to to replace the work done by multi-disciplinary teams
or recommendations to these – to do so would be independent, multi-disciplinary research services.
maintain a critical mass of capable researchers to of research staff employed in independent research
beyond the scope of our remit and capabilities. The For example, the DTLR, in its role as regulator,
simultaneously tackle interesting new fields and institutes dedicated to construction research.
points identified here are raised in anticipation that requires independent advice from researchers who
respond to unforeseen problems in existing Moreover, the specialised and wide ranging sources
they may be considered through the process of are seen to be impartial by construction
technologies, systems and processes. of knowledge necessary for construction research
discussion and strategic development following stakeholders and their clients. Changes in the
suggest that a cadre of full-time, experienced,
the launch of the Fairclough Review. structure of the research base are causing some
C6.4 Restructuring government funding professional researchers are required, to provide a
concern over the future provision of these services.
pool of scientific expertise, to absorb knowledge
C6.1 Industrial research requirements Regulations have provided an important stimulus There has been extensive restructuring of
from external sources and to integrate it with their
to innovation over the past 20 years, particularly in government arrangements for public sector research
The UK construction sector faces a multitude of existing knowledge. The fragmentation of
areas of environmental and social concern. In order in the last two decades across many OECD countries.
challenges to improve its performance and construction research and the importance of
to keep pace with wider social, economic, The UK has been a leader in the development of new
rationalise its structure in order to increase the geographic proximity for technology transfer
environmental and technical changes a critical forms of private-public research relationships.
quality of its products and services. It faces suggests that independent research institutes should
mass of research capability needs to be Privatisation of research organisations, including the
increasing international competition and the continue to play an important role in technology
maintained. Our interviews suggest that the BRE, has been part of a broader shift in the model of
continued threat of skills shortages, in part because transfer. They could provide a valuable service to
current £6m annual expenditure on regulations is pubic research provision, away from reliance on
it is failing to attract high calibre engineers, firms by acting as intermediaries between specialised
the minimum required to deliver the regulatory centralised, stable funding of discipline-based
technologists, designers and managers. There is a university researchers and industry, identifying nearby
function. However, there is a backlog of research organisations, towards project-based competitive
real opportunity for construction to exploit and university departments with the expertise required by
that needs to be completed in order to make funding, public-private partnerships,
develop new technologies and processes; yet to firms. There is extensive evidence that geography has
timely changes to regulations. Government should interdisciplinarity and internationalisation. In
harness them industry needs to increase its an important influence on patterns of innovation
therefore consider investing more in research in response, research organisations are taking on new
investment in skills and R&D. Success will depend (Salter et al., 2000). Small firms are most likely to
support of its regulatory function. roles and challenges. Recent changes in the roles of
upon the sector’s collective capabilities to: search for research expertise in local universities, but
government departments with the separation of
even large international companies rely on local
• Create a vision and strategy for research; C6.3 Research priorities and international responsibilities for construction research into the
competencies for their research projects. Users,
connectivity DTI and DTLR is likely to increase the need for
• Articulate research needs in collaboration with especially small and medium sized firms often
co-ordination between different research sponsorship
clients, end-users and researchers; The selection of priority research areas should take experience difficulties in finding specific sources of
activities. The health of the research base depends to
into account existing national strengths and expertise in a widely dispersed university sector
• Provide a stimulating work environment, an extent on the type of funding it receives. A
weaknesses, both in the public and private sectors. focusing on longer-term knowledge development.
attractive to new researchers; balanced portfolio which re-aligns the research
Consideration should also be given to longer-term On the other hand, technical institutes are less able
objectives and funds within and between the
• Encourage and promote connectivity within fundamental research that may be important in the than university research teams to have capabilities in
different government sponsors will be necessary.
and between researchers in the BRE, research future. Capabilities in selected research areas could new technological areas and find it difficult to keep
associations and universities; be increased rapidly by following the example of up-to-date in fast-moving fields (Mason and Wagner,
C6.5 Effectiveness and competitiveness
small European countries, such as Sweden and 1999). The future challenge is therefore to develop a
• Promote and support exchanges of personnel competitive environment for different types of
Norway. They encourage their scientists to enter The effectiveness of the emerging research system
between industry and the research-base; research, problem-solving and dissemination services
international research collaborations that provide will depend on the quality of individual organisations
• Engage more fully in international networks of access to the latest knowledge and techniques. and the strength of the links between those players – while maintaining a degree of collaboration between
technologists and researchers. Scientists and technologists who have studied and i.e. on communication, co-operation and research performers and improving their linkage with
worked abroad with leading research groups also collaboration. Competition is increasing between industrial users.
The innovative capacity of construction rests on the
enable these countries to establish “niches of different types of organisations that used to
research activities and performance of a wide Meeting local needs whilst maintaining a national
research excellence”. Parts of the UK construction collaborate in less confrontational environments.
range of disciplines and on its ability to absorb new research system capable of competing internationally
research base are well connected in international Whilst competition brings new benefits, it also results
ideas. Our study shows that this system plays an could result in duplication of effort in some areas.
networks, but more could be done here, in problems such as loss of cohesion within the
important part in enhancing the performance of Much of the literature on the economics of science is
particularly in making links to disciplines outside system. We found that industry is concerned about
the sector. However, few areas were identified in devoted to the ‘wastefulness’ of duplication (Stephan
the more traditional core areas of construction- this shift. Traditionally some leading firms have
which UK construction research is outstanding and Audretsch, 2000). But studies of past
related technology and materials research. contributed in-kind to the activities of research
internationally – areas of strength included achievements show that near-duplication is not
groups. Now, as the output of these contributions is
geotechnics. Nevertheless, many research areas In addition to allocating resources to research necessarily a bad thing; for example it may
being commercialised, industry feels that their in-kind
were thought to be adequately covered, with priorities, the UK needs to maintain capabilities in encourage healthy competition in getting cost-
contributions may no longer be appropriate. At the
mixed views on the capabilities of providers in all areas of construction research, so as to be in a effective solutions to market, or promote better
same time, the income that is derived from these
different parts of the research-base. position to understand, absorb and use the results tailoring of products to precise customer needs. At
commercial activities does not appear to be sufficient
of research carried out in the rest of the world. best, a ‘race’ to develop a key application may lead
to cover the gap left by an apparent decline in
one participant to make a fundamental
government contributions.
breakthrough, as happened in the foundation of the
The impact of short-term, competitive contracting on pharmaceutical industry.
the development of specialised facilities and
Annex D
ANNEX D: Building Regulations forward requirements
BUILDING REGULATIONS
FORWARD REQUIREMENTS
Table D(i): Integrity of the building (cont)
The specific issues that are expected to drive

Building Regulation requirements for research
PART B – Fire safety
competencies over the next 5 years are summarised
below. The required research competencies for each Issues Required Required
Approved Document Part of the regulations have Competencies Competencies
been placed in three distinct areas: Expertise Facilities
D(i): Integrity of the building
D(ii): Operational performance of the building Tracking and influencing the development of test Fire safety Resistance and
D(iii): Occupant interactions methods for reaction to fire and fire resistance. engineering Reaction to
They are also summarised in terms of the range of Fire test rigs,
Competency in the development and application of Fire CFD and FE
expertise and facilities that would be needed. including
Safety Engineering and computer modelling, including benchmarking
ad-hoc testing
extended application of codes and standards.
Table D(i): Integrity of the Building Fire chemistry and
Modelling
Fire investigations. toxicity
facilities
Environmental impact of fire Human factors including physical
PART A – Structure scale and
Requirements for fire protection, and detection Virtual reality
including the development of practical solutions for modelling numerical
Issues Required Required
Competencies Competencies reducing fire spread in buildings. Burn hall with
Test and
Expertise Facilities environmental
assessment
Whole life performance, particularly failure Material Load expertise protection
mechanisms and modes, for wide range of structural science measurement facilities
Incident
materials, including timber, concrete steel and masonry. (static and
Structural investigation
dynamic)
Development of BSI and CEN codes and standards engineering
ISO, CEN and BSI
relating to AD A, particularly the Basis of Design Structural system
Construction application and
head code and sub-codes. analysis
techniques and development
(modelling
Evaluation, up dating of data and modelling of design
and full scale
operational and extreme loadings, particularly experience
demonstration)
for imposed static, dynamic and accidental loads.
Geotechnical
Component
Evaluation of crowd loading and structural interaction. engineering
test rigs
High rise structures, particularly the integrity of Methods of
Material
the design and materials used structural PART C – Site preparation and resistance to moisture
chemical and
analysis
Risk assessment procedures relating to microstructure
disproportionate collapse. Test and Issues Required Required
analysis
Competencies Competencies
assessment
Impacts of climate change, particularly maintenance Numerical Expertise Facilities
expertise
of data used to define characteristic wind and modelling
Detailing to reduce radon risks Contaminated land Landfill
snow loadings. Failure
Access to specialisms monitoring
investigation Protection from landfill gas and chemicals
Fire resistance of building constructions using fire expert systems equipment
Micro structure
engineering methodology. Eurocode and (ESDU etc) Climate change effects such as ground water levels,
analysis regarding Radon monitoring
BSI application driving rain
Ground stability and foundation design, contaminants and equipment
and
particularly on brownfield sites. Membrane/insulation design and whole their effect on
development Numerical
life performance structural materials
Competency in the development and application modelling
Remediation of contaminated land and plastic
of structural assessment methods particularly for
membranes Humidity
novel structural components and connections.
transmission cells
Physics, specifically
radon measurement
and control
Contamination
modelling
ANNEX D: Building Regulations forward requirements ANNEX D: Building Regulations forward requirements
Table D(ii): Operational Performance of the Building Table D(ii): Operational Performance of the Building (cont)
PART D – Toxic Substance PART F1 - Ventilation
Issues Required Required Issues Required Required

Competencies Competencies Competencies Competencies
Expertise Facilities Expertise Facilities
Review of BSIs and possible need for changes Internal Air In situ vapour Development of performance based guidance to ensure Chemistry IAQ measurement
Quality assessment monitoring IAQ requirements will be achieved equipment
Occupational
equipment including
Toxicology Assessment of material VOC emission rates so they health
tracer gas
can be matched with ventilation rates to ensure health
CFD modelling
limits are not exceeded Ventilation rate
Human factors measurement
Development of natural ventilation systems, including
Building practice equipment
PART E – Resistance to the passage of sound ventilator location and performance
Ventilation Test houses
Development of active ventilation control
Issues Required Required eg mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, etc Engineering VOC
Micro-biology measurement
Expertise Facilities Occupant influence on VOC load and emission rates
Transmission of horizontal impact noise Building acoustics Flanking Effect of attached and integral garages on IAQ Pathology
laboratory Ventilation and IAQ requirements for occupant Epidemiology
Human perceptions of noise disturbance Building practice
Transmission suite productivity particularly in workplaces and schools Psychology
Effect of wall linings and fixings and developments Human factors
regarding absorbing/insulating materials Intensity Monitoring and guidance on air tightness
measurement Factors effecting the incidence of air-born pathogens
Interaction between sound and thermal insulation
equipment
Development of constructions with improved Design to prevent infestation, particularly for novel
sound insulation organic insulation materials
Climate change impact on humidity, the spread of

microbial growth, population of house dust mite
Avoidance of Sick Building Syndrome
PART F2 – Condensation in Roofs

Expertise Facilities
Control of condensation to avoid structural damage and Moisture dynamics Test chambers
improvement of thermal insulation
Building practice Computer
Development of more energy efficient methods with modelling
Meterorology
particular regard to buildability
Interstitial condensation prediction, measurement and

avoidance
BUILDING
ANNEX D: REGULATIONS
Building Regulations
FORWARDforward
REQUIREMENTS
requirements ANNEX D: Building Regulations forward requirements
Table D(ii): Operational Performance of the Building (cont) Table D(ii): Operational Performance of the Building (cont)
PART H – Drainage and waste disposal PART L – Conservation of fuel and power

Effects of climate change particularly drainage Hydrodynamics and System testing Practical applications of the revisions to AD L Building and Environmental
capacity and back flooding and rain water ingress to flow modelling and modelling building services Test houses
Gaps and scope for misinterpretation of the
sewage systems capabilities design
Bio-chemistry performance requirements in AD L Material property
Development of grey water and solid waste Building energy and durability
Materials science Implications of conservatories and extensions on whole
storage systems modelling measurement
building performance
Health sciences
Effect on drainage systems of settlement on Practical experience U value
Climate change implications and application of low
brownfield sites Geotechnics regarding measurement
carbon and no carbon technologies
buildability and and modelling
Reed bed waste processing
Control of summer overheating and appropriate workmanship,
Building
Implications of developments to underpinning application of air conditioning commissioning,
modelling
BS standards operation, and
Implications of novel heat acquisition, retention and software
Interaction with the requirements of Drinking distribution systems, eg ground heat recovery, maintenance
Water Directorate Regulations mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, Construction type
under-floor heating. requirements
Improvement of existing housing stock Moisture control
Making more use of daylighting and performance of Economic and
PART J – Combustion appliances and fuel storage systems lighting systems carbon assessment

Design of hearths, flues, fire places and chimneys Building services Flue and chimney
(masonry or metal) for safety, and reliability, including test rigs
Materials science
the effects of material durability, failure modes,
Gas measurement
renovations, and repairs CFD modelling
equipment
Air supply for combustion and interaction with Toxicology (CO
Appliance
ventilation and energy efficiency and NO)
test rigs
Increasing use of flue-less appliances, particularly the Knowledge of
Chimney test
implications for ventilation and contaminants domestic appliance
house
market
Safe accommodation of combustion systems, particularly
developments (oil, Numerical
the effect of workmanship in retrofitting
gas, solid and LPG modelling
Control systems, particularly operability and fuels)
effectiveness
Implications of developments to underpinning BS

standards and transition to ENs
ANNEX D: Building Regulations forward requirements ANNEX D: Building Regulations forward requirements
Table D(iii): Occupant interaction with the building Table D(iii): Occupant interaction with the building (cont)
PART G – Hygiene PART N – Glazing – materials and protection

Control of water storage temperature to Medical sciences Micro-biology Accident statistics gathering and analysis Human factors Material property
prevent legionella testing measurement
Occupational Safety of roof lights Building practice
Control of water delivery to prevent scalding health and hygiene Mobile sampling equipment
Assessment of novel glazing fixings
and monitoring Impact test
Use of recycled water and long term hygiene control Micro-biology
equipment Implications for safe access for cleaning arising from equipment
for recycled water systems
Building Services extensions including conservatories
Human Factors Requirements for location of safety glass
Impact assessment for new glass products
Adoption of CEN impact test
PART K – Protection from falling collision and impact

Accident statistics gathering and analysis including Human factors Stair, ramp and Electrical Safety
population profile changes barrier test rigs
Statistical analysis Issues Required Required
Human reactions under normal and emergency Load monitoring Competencies Competencies
Experimental Expertise Facilities
conditions equipment
design
Factors including climate effecting surface grip and safe Slip resistance Electrical building services in dwellings Electrical
Building practice
operation. measurement engineering
Underlying causes of accident statistics
Optimum stair geometry for whole population use Building services
Monitoring the impact of changes to BS7671
Accidents associated with building features including (previously IEE wiring regulations for buildings) such as Practical knowledge
self closing doors the new provisions for sockets in bathrooms of safe design and
installation
Survey and
statistical analysis
PART M – Access and facilities for disabled people

Telecoms (Broadband)
Compatibility with the Disability Discrimination Act Human factors Building feature
test rigs
Effects of sensory impairment on access, egress, signage, Psychology Issues Required Required
lighting, acoustic performance, and fire safety Acoustic Competencies Competencies
Ergonomics and Expertise Facilities
measurement
Implications of assistive technology developments physical limitations
arising from Access to Ensuring the building structure is not a barrier to the Knowledge of new
Ergonomics of building services and sanitary facilities,
disabilities representative introduction of new telecommunications systems systems
particularly design for access
samples of people Tracking system developments, particularly use of radio
Acoustics
Assessment of opening forces
connectivity which might obviate the need to consider
Awareness of building structure
assistive
technologies
Annex E
ANNEX E: References and further reading
REFERENCES AND
FURTHER READING
References Iansiti, M. (1998) Stephan, P.E. and Audretsch, D.B. BRE (2001)0 Courtney, R. (1994) DETR (1999b)
Technology integration, Harvard Business (2000) Annual Review, Building Research The Future Role of Building Research Construction Research & Innovation
Andrews, J. and Derbyshire, A. (1993) School Press, Boston. The Economics of Science and Innovation, Establishment. Institutes (in Seminar to mark retirement Programme: Annual Report 1998/1999,
Crossing Boundaries: A report on the State Edward Elgar, London of Professor Jelle Witteveen, Managing London, Department of the Environment,
of Commonality in Education and Training Langrish, J., Gibbons, M., Evans, W.G. BSRIA (2001)
Director, TNO-BOUW)Rotterdam. Transport and the Regions.
for the Construction Professions, and Jevons, F.R. (1972) UCAS (1998) Annual Review, BSRIA.
Construction Industry Council. Wealth from Knowledge: a study of Handbook Entry 1998 Courtney, R. (1997) DETR (2000a)
Callon, M. (1994)
innovation in industry, Macmillan. Linneys ESL Ltd, Mansfield, Notts, Building Research Establishment – past, Construction Research & Innovation
Arnold, E. and Thuriaux, B. (2001) Is Science a Public Good?, Science,
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire. present and future, Building Research and Programme: Annual Report 1997/1998,
Contribution of basic research to the Irish Mason, G. and Wagner, K. (1999) Technology and Human Values,
Information, 25, 285-291. London, Department of the Environment,
national innovation system, Science and Knowledge transfer and innovation in 19, 395-424.
Transport and the Regions.
Public Policy, 28, 86-98. Germany and Britain: “intermediate CPN (1996)
CERF (1993)
institution” models of knowledge transfer Innovative Manufacturing Initiative: DETR (2000b)
Cohen, M. and Levinthal, D. (1990) A Nationwide Survey of Civil Engineering
under strain?, Industry and Innovation, 6, Benchmarking Theme Day, Construction Construction Research & Innovation
Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on Related R&D, Civil Engineering Research
85-109. Productivity Network. Programme: Annual Report 1999/2000,
learning and innovation, Administrative Foundation.
London, Department of the Environment,
Science Quarterly, 35, 128-152. Nam, C.H. and Tatum, C.B. (1988) Additional sources CRISP (1999a)
CFR (1996) Transport and the Regions.
Major characteristics of constructed CRISP Strategic Priorities 1999, London,
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. AEGIS (1999a) The funding and provision of research and
products and resulting limitations of Construction Research and Innovation DETR (2000c)
(1989) Innovation and learning: the two Building & Construction Product System: development in the UK construction sector
construction technology, Construction Strategy Panel. Construction Research & Innovation
faces of R&D, Economic Journal, Public Sector R&D and the Education and 1990 - 1994, London, Department of the
Management and Economics, 6, 133-148. Programme: Prospectus 2000, Including
99, 569-596. Training Infrastructure, Sydney, Australian Environment. CRISP (1999b)
Partners in Innovation Guidelines for
Narin, F. (1996) Expert Group in Industry Studies. Linking Construction Industry Needs and
DCMS (2000) CIC (1993) Applicants, London, Department of the
Exploring the links between scientific Construction Research Outputs (in
Better Public Buildings, London, The Better AEGIS (1999b) Profit from innovation: a management Environment, Transport and the Regions.
research and commercial innovations (in Workshop: Think Pieces and Synthesis)(Ed,
Public Building Group, Department for Innovation Indicators in Building and booklet for the construction industry,
presentation at PRISM), The Wellcome Panel, C. R. a. I. S.) London. DETR (2000d)
Culture, Media and Sport. Construction, Sydney, Australian Expert Brighton, Construction Industry
Trust, London. Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for
Group in Industry Studies. Council/IPRA. CRISP (2001a)
Egan, J. (1998) All, London, Department of the
Nethercot, D. CRISP Strategic Priorities 2001, London,
Rethinking Construction, London, AEGIS (1999c) CIC (1996) Environment, Transport and the Regions.
and Lloyd-Smith, D. (2001) Construction Research and Innovation
Department of Environment, Transport Mapping the Building & Construction A New Way of Working – The Future of
Attracting the best and brightest: Strategy Panel. DETR (2001)
and Regions (DETR). Product System in Australia, Sydney, Construction, Construction Sponsorship
broadening the appeal of engineering Construction Statistics Annual, London,
Australian Expert Group in Industry Directorate. CRISP (2001b)
Engineering Council (1998) education, London, The Ove Arup Department of the Environment, Transport
Studies. Notes of a CRISP dinner at Princes House,
Economic Council Digest of Engineering Foundation. CIRIA (1998) and the Regions (DETR).
London, Construction Research and
Statistics 1998, London, The Engineering Alarcon, L. (Ed.) (1997) Adding value to construction projects
ONS (1992) Innovation Strategy Panel. Dodgson, M. (2000)
Council. Lean Construction,A.A. Balkema, through standardisation and pre-assembly,
UK Standard Industrial Classification of The management of technological
Rotterdam. London, Construction Industry Research CRISP (2001c)
Faulkner, W. and Senker, J. (1995) Economic Activities (UK SIC) Office for innovation, Oxford University
and Information Association. People Knowledge and Industry
Knowledge Frontiers, Clarendon Press, National Statistics. Allen, W. (1998) Press, Oxford.
Improvement: CRISP Construction
Oxford. The conduct of building research, Building CIRIA (2000)
RAEng (1996) Research Priorities 2001. DoE (1992)
Research & Information, 26, 374-382. Annual Report 2000, CIRIA.
Gann, D.M. (1991) A statement on the construction industry, The Dr Toad Talk: A First Transcript,
CRISP (2001d)
Future Skill Needs of the Construction London, Royal Academy of Engineering. Atkinson, G. (no date) CIRIA (2001) London, Department of the Environment.
Proceedings of Awayday (in Awayday
Industries, Brighton, Department of Construction Research and Development: CIRIA News, CIRIA.
Rosenberg, N. (1991) Dossier)(Ed, Panel, C. R. a. I. S.) Chesham, DoE (1993a)
Employment/IPRA. Critical issues in science policy research, A Comparative Review of Four Countries, CITB (2001) Buckinghamshire. Building with Europe: Construction
Gann, D.M. (1997) Science and Public Policy, 18, 335-346. The Chartered Institute of Building. CITB Business Plan 2001-2005, CITB. Industry Guide to EC R&D, London,
Cunion, K. (1992)
Should governments fund construction Ball, P. (1997) Department of the Environment.
Salter, A., D’Este, P., Pavitt, K., Scott, CME (1995) Construction Research Policy Seminar
research?, Building Research and A., Martin, B., Geuna, A., Nightingale, Made to Measure: New Materials for the Japan - UK Seminar (in Japan – UK (in Construction Research Policy Seminar). DoE (1993b)
Information, 25, 257-267. P. and Patel, P. (2000) 21st Century, Princeton University Press, Seminar), Department of Construction Construction Sponsorship Directorate,
Princeton. Dahl, M. S. and Dalum, B. (2001)
Gann, D.M. (2000) Talent, Not Technology: the Impact of Management & Engineering, University of London, Department of the Environment.
In Innovative Clusters – Drivers of National
Building Innovation: Complex Constructs Publicly Funded Research on Innovation in Barlow, J. (2000) Reading.
Systems of Innovation, OECD, Paris. DoE (1995a)
in a Changing World, Thomas Telford, the UK, Brighton, SPRU – Science and The Future of Housing, London, RICS. Co-Construct (2001) Partners in Technology, London,
London. Technology Policy, University of Sussex. Davidson, C. H. (1997)
Barlow, J., Cohen, M., Jashapara, A. Construction for Society: A Research Department of the Environment.
The Building Centres – CIB’s information
Gann, D.M. and Salter, A. (1999) Salter, A. and Martin, B. (2001) and Simpson, Y. (1997) Agenda – A Response From Co-Construct
allies, Building Research and Information, DoE (1995b)
Interdisciplinary Skills for Built The economic benefits of basic research: a Towards Positive Partnering. Revealing the to Sir John Fairclough, London,
25, 313-317. UK Construction Research and Innovation:
Environment Professionals, London, The critical review, Research Policy. Realities in the Construction Industry, Co-Construct.
An overview of Opportunities for
Ove Arup Foundation. Policy Press, Bristol. DBA (2001)
Seaden, G. (1997) Cohen, L. R. and Noll, R. G. (1994) Funding Support, London, Department
A review of construction related R&D on
Gann, D.M. and Salter, A.J. (2000) The future of national construction Barlow, J. and Venables, T. (2000) Privatizing Public Research of the Environment.
information and communications
Innovation in project-based, service- research organisations, Building Research Housing and Construction: Identifying (in Scientific American).
technologies (ICT), London, David DoE (1996)
enhanced firms: the construction of and Information, 25, 250-256. Missing Research Needs and Consensus (2000) Bartholomew Associates. The Funding and Provisions of Research
complex products and systems, Research Senker, J. (2001) Opportunities, CRISP Commission 00/01. Impact Assessment of the Construction and Development in the UK Construction
Policy, 29, 955-972. DETR (1997)
Changing organisation of public sector Bartholomew, D. (2001) Process Business Plan, London, Consensus Sector, London, Department of the
Promoting Innovation in the construction
Gibbons, M., Limoges, research in Europe - implications for What is nanotechnology? What are its Research International. Environment.
industry, London, Department of the
C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzmann, benchmarking human resources in RTD, implications for construction? (in Cooper, I. (1997) Environment, Transport and the Regions. DTI (2000a)
S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) Science and Public Policy, 28, 277-284. Foresight/CRISP Workshop on The UK’s changing research base for Building a better quality of life: A strategy
The New Production of Knowledge: the Nanotechnology), CRISP, London. DETR (1999a)
Slaughter, S. (1993) construction: the impact of recent for more sustainable construction,
dynamics of science and research in Construction Research & Innovation
Innovation and learning during BCA (2000) government policy, Building Research and Department of Trade and Industry.
contemporary society, Sage, London. Business Plan – Promoting innovation in
implementation: a comparison of user and Annual Review 2000, British Cement Information, 25, 292-300.
the construction industry, London, DTI (2000b)
Groak, S. and Krimgold, F. (1989) manufacturer innovations, Research Policy, Association. Department of the Environment, Transport Construction Research and Innovation
The ‘practitioner-researcher’ in the 22, 81-95.
BFRL (1998) and the Regions. Programme – Prospectus 2000.
building industry, Building Research and SPRU (1996)
Practice, 17, 52-59. 1998 Building & Fire Research Laboratory:
The Relationship between Publicly Funded Activities, Accomplishments &
Horne, M. and Stedman Jones, D. (2001) Basic Research and Economic Recognitions, USA, Building & Fire
Leadership - the challenge for all?, Performance, SPRU/HM Treasury, Brighton. Research Laboratory.
The Institute of Management
ANNEX E: References and further reading ANNEX E: References and further reading
DTI (2001a) Council: A Strategic Framework ICE (1992) Manseau, A. and Seaden, Pavitt, K. (1995) Vock, P. (2001)
Construction Research & Innovation: 2001 for Innovative Construction Long Term & Fundamental Research, G. (Eds.) (2001) National policies for technical change: An Anatomy of the Swiss Construction
Priority Areas & Partners in Innovation (CONFIDENTIAL) London, The Institution of Civil Engineers. Innovation in Construction – An Where are the increasing returns to Cluster in Innovative Clusters – Drivers
Guidelines for Applicants, London, Swindon, Engineering and Physical International Review of Public Policies, economic research? (in Science, of National Systems of Innovation,
IPRA (1992a)
Department of Trade and Industry. Sciences Research Council. Spon Press, London/New York. Technology and the Economy), Vol. 93 OECD, Paris.
Construction R&D, analysis of private and
National Academy of Sciences, Irving, CA,
DTI (2001b) EPSRC (2001b) public sector funding of research & Mansfield, E. (1995) Voeller, J. (1995)
pp. 12693-12700.
Construction Statistics Annual, London, Research Landscape 2001/2002, development in the UK construction sector Academic research underlying industrial The likely progress of engineering
Department of Trade and Industry. Engineering and Physical Sciences – Source document, London, Innovation innovations: sources, characteristics and Pavitt, K. (1999) automation over the next decade
Research Council. Policy Research Associates: Construction financing, Review of Economics and Technology Management and Systems of (in CII Conference).
DTI (2001c)
Policy Directorate, Department of the Statistics, 77, 55-65. Innovation, Edward Elgar, Aldershot.
Foresight: Constructing The Future, Flanagan (1999) von Hippel, E. (2001)
Environment.
London, Department of Trade Lessons for UK Foresight from around the Martin, B.R. and von Tunzelmann, RCF (1997) User toolkits for innovation, Journal of
and Industry. world, London, Construction Associate IPRA (1992b) G.N. (1997) Adding Value to Design and Construction Product Innovation Management,
Programme/CRISP. Construction R&D, analysis of private and Public versus private funding of R&D: a re- (in Profit From Research and Development 18, 247-257.
DTI (2001d)
public sector funding of research & examination of the crowding-out in the Construction Sector)(Ed, Forum, R.
Meeting Notes: Review of Construction Flanagan, R., Norman, W.S. Atkins (1994)
development in the UK construction sector hypothesis (in ESRC/NIESR Seminar on C.) Pembroke College, Oxford.
Research Competencies, London, G. and Worral, H. (1995) Strategies for the European Construction
– Main Findings, London, Innovation Policy Industrial Innovation and Economic
Department of Trade and Industry. Trade performance of the UK building RCF (2001a) Sector, Brussels, Office for Official
Research Associates: Construction Policy Performance), SPRU mimeo, University of
materials and components industry, Profit From Research and Development in Publications of the European
DTI, H. (1998) Directorate, Department of the Sussex, Brighton.
Engineering, Construction and the Construction Sector (in Profit From Communities.
Innovating for the Future: investing in Environment.
Architectural Management, 2, 141-163. NAO (2001) Research and Development in the
R&D, HM Treasury & Department of Trade Waterman, N. and Loots, A. (2001)
KD/Consultants (1991) Modernising Construction, London, Construction Sector)(Ed, Forum, R. C.)
and Industry. Gerloff, E. A. (1973) An Assessment of UK Industry’s R&D
Construction: a challenge for the HMSO / National Audit Office. Pembroke College, Oxford.
Performance Control in Government R&D Investment & Technology Requirements
ENBRI (1993a) European industry, report prepared for the
Projects: The Measurable Effects of NEDO (1978) RCF (2001b) (CONFIDENTIAL), London, Quo-Tec Ltd.
Conclusions (in ENBRI Symposium European Commission, The Netherlands,
Performing Required Management and How Flexible is Construction?, London, Sir John Fairclough’s Review of
“R&D for the Construction Site KD Consultants. Watts, G. (1997)
Engineering Techniques, IEEE Transactions Building and Civil Engineering Economic Construction Research Competences,
Process”), Luxembourg. The National Centre for Construction in
on Engineering Management, EM-20. Kose, S. (1997) Development Council, National Economic Reading, Reading Construction Forum.
the UK, Building Research and
ENBRI (1993b) Building Research Institute in Japan: past, Development Office, HMSO.
Groak, S. and Ive, G. (1986) Rilling, J. (1992) Information, 25, 279-284.
General Information (in ENBRI Symposium present and future, Building Research and
Economics and technological change: NEDO (1985) Construction Research in the European
“R&D for the Construction Site Information, 25, 268-271. Winch, G. (1998)
some implications for the study of the Strategy for Construction R&D, Building Community Programme, Building
Process”), Luxembourg. Zephyrs of creative destruction:
building industry, Habitat International, Lansley, P. (1997) and Civil Engineering EDCs, National Research and Information, 20, 20-27.
understanding the management of
ENBRI (2000) 10, 115-132. The impact of BRE’s commercialisation on Economic Development Office.
Rothwell, R. and Zegveld, W. (1985) innovation in construction, Building
A new century and a new challenge (in the research community, Building Research
Groak, S. (1992) Nowak, F. and Harling, K. (1996) Reindustrialization and Technology, Research and information, 26, 268-279.
Construction Technology in Europe). and Information, 25, 301-312.
The Idea of Building, E. & F.N. Spon, Evolution of construction process research, Longman, Harlow.
Winch, G. E. (1999)
EPSRC (1994) London. Latham, M. (1994) Watford, Building Research Establishment.
Senker, J. (1998) Innovation in the British construction
Innovative Manufacturing – a new way of Constructing the Team, London, HMSO.
Helpman, E.E. (1998) OECD (1998) Turmoil in public sector building research – industry: the role of public policy
working, Swindon, Engineering and
General Purpose Technologies and Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (1997) Science, Technology and Industry Outlook, part of a wider problem, Building Research instruments, Working Paper, London, The
Physical Sciences Research Council.
Economic Growth, MIT Press, Productivity in Buildings (in The Workplace OECD, Paris. & Information, 26, 383-385. UK TG35 Team.
EPSRC (1996) Boston, Mass. Comfort Forum), Central Hall,
OECD (2001) SERC (1994) Woodward, J. (1965)
Innovative Manufacturing Initiative: Westminster, London.
Hertog, P.D. and Brouwer, E. (2001) Innovative Clusters – Drivers of National Innovative Manufacturing – A New Way of Industry and Organisation: theory and
Announced Projects 1996, Swindon,
Innovation in the Dutch Construction Leppavuori, E. K. M. (1997) Innovation Systems, Paris, Organisation for Working, Swindon, Science and practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Cluster in Innovative Clusters – Drivers Commercial building research – threat or Economic Co-operation and Development. Engineering Research Council.
Research Council. Wright, R.N., Rosenfeld, A.H. and
of National Systems of Innovation, opportunity for customer satisfaction?,
Oslo Manual (1997) TE (2000a) Fowell, A.J. (1995)
EPSRC (1998a) OECD, Paris. Building Research and Information,
The Measurement of Scientific and Impact Assessment of the Technology National Planning for Construction and
Innovative Manufacturing Initiative: 25, 272-279.
HF (2000) Technological Activities – Proposed and Performance Business Plan, Building R&D, Gaithersburg, National
Construction as a Manufacturing Process –
The Housing Demonstration Projects Lester, R.K., Piore, Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Taywood Engineering. Institute of Standards and Technology.
Current Projects, Swindon, Engineering
Report, Improving through measurement, . and Malek, K.M. (1998) Technological Innovation Data, Paris,
and Physical Sciences Research Council. TE (2000b) Wyatt, M. (2001)
London, The Housing Forum. Interpretive management: what general OECD/Statistical Office of the European
Review of DETR Codes and Standards Improving Industry Input Into Strategic
EPSRC (1998b) managers can learn from design, Harvard Communities.
HF (2001) Support, Taywood Engineering. Research Planning And Priority Setting.
Innovative Manufacturing Initiative: Land Business Review, Reprint 98207, 86-96.
The Housing Forum Demonstration Pavitt, K. (1984)
Transport – Current Projects, Swindon, Technopolis (1999a) Yeang, K. (1994)
Projects Report, emerging issues and Linder, M. (1994) Sectoral patterns of technical change:
Engineering and Physical Sciences Closing Report for the Partners in Bioclimatic Skyscrapers, Artemis, London.
lessons, Section 2, London, The Projecting Capitalism – a history towards a taxonomy and a theory,
Research Council. Innovation 1998 Competition, Brighton,
Housing Forum. of internationalisation of the Research Policy, 343 - 373.
Technopolis.
EPSRC (1998c) construction industry, Greenwood
Hillebrandt, P. M. (1984) Pavitt, K. (1992)
Innovative Manufacturing Initiative: Press, Westport, Connecticut. Technopolis (1999b)
Analysis of the British Construction Internationalisation of technological
Process Industries – Current Projects, Indicators for the Health of the
Industry, Macmillan, London. Lundvall, B.A. (Ed.) (1992) innovation – viewpoint, Science and Public
Swindon, Engineering and Physical Construction Research Base: A Scoping
National Systems of Innovation, Policy, 19, 119 - 123.
Sciences Research Council. IBC (1997) Study, Brighton, Technopolis.
Pinter, London.
Review of European Building Regulations
EPSRC (2001a) Technopolis (1999c)
and Technical Provisions, Summary M4i (1999)
Engineering and Physical Sciences PII 1998 Best Practice Workshop Booklet,
Document, Epsom, The Institute of Demonstration Projects:Year One
Research Brighton, Technopolis.
Building Control. (in New Civil Engineer).
Tidd, J., Bessant, J.
ICE (1991)
and Pavitt, K. (1997)
Construction Research & Development,
Managing Innovation, Wiley, Chichester.
London, The Institution of Civil Engineers.
Annex F
ANNEX F: Contacts
CONTACTS
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRADE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT COMMERCE RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION • Construction Best Practice Programme
AND INDUSTRY OGC has been set up to lead a wide-ranging Rethinking Construction is the banner under which The CBPP is funded from within the DTI’s
The overall aim of the DTI’s Construction Industry programme to modernise procurement in the construction industry, its clients and the construction programme and is steered jointly
Directorate is to secure an efficient market in the government, and deliver substantial value for government are working together to improve UK by DTI and the construction industry. The CBPP
Construction Industry, with innovative and money improvements. Working at the heart of construction performance. Rethinking Construction has a key role in ensuring that the industry is
successful UK firms that meet the needs of clients government, OGC is developing an integrated partners aim to showcase innovations in both made aware not only of the range of
and society and are competitive at home and procurement policy and strategy across products and performance through Demonstration management best practice (innovation available
abroad. The DTI supports construction innovation government. OGC represents the UK on Projects and highlight best practice available within and the benefits of adopting best practice) but is
and research to improve the UK industry’s procurement matters in Europe, in the World Trade the industry. They also seek to encourage the also given help to put it into practice.
competitiveness, quality and performance, the Organisation (WTO) and other international fora industry and its clients to adopt the principles of
Tel: 0845 605 55 56 (CBPP Helpdesk)
environment and the quality of life. The rethinking construction to their mutual benefit.
Tel: 0845 000 4 999 www.cbpp.org.uk
Teaching Company Scheme is the Government’s www.ogc.gov.uk www.rethinkingconstruction.org.uk
flagship scheme for promoting technology
transfer by facilitating the establishment of • The Movement for Innovation (M4I)
project-based partnerships between the science CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH AND
base and companies. The Movement for Innovation (M4I) aims to lead
INNOVATION STRATEGY PANEL (CRISP) radical improvement in construction in value for
Tel: 020 7215 5000 money, profitability, reliability and respect for
The Construction Research and Innovation Strategy
www.dti.org.uk people, through demonstration and
Panel operates to encourage competitiveness
E-mail: construction.research@dti.gov.uk dissemination of best practice and innovation.
through the appropriate use of research and
Tel: 01367 245 200 innovation and to identify and promote the Around 170 demonstration projects have been
www.tcsonline.org.uk construction community’s research and innovation set up to date – each having identified a
priorities to major funders. Government are particular innovation, or a number of
represented on the Panel as are the Highways innovations, to improve the construction and
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, LOCAL Agency, EPSRC and academe. procurement process.
GOVERNMENT AND THE REGIONS Tel: 020 7379 3322 (CRISP Secretariat) Tel: 01923 664 820 (Enquiries)
www.crisp-uk.org.uk www.m4i.org.uk
The DTLR is responsible for health and safety issues
including development of both Building and Fire
• The Housing Forum
regulations. This complements the existing work of
the Health and Safety Commission and Executive RESEARCH COUNCILS Leads on housebuilding, refurbishment and
both of whom report to DTLR ministers. Both EPSRC, the Engineering and Physical repairs and maintenance in the public and
Sciences Research Council, and ESRC, the private sectors.
Tel: 020 7944 3000
www.dtlr.gov.uk Economic and Social Research Council, develop
and manage research programmes relevant to • The Local Government Task Force (LGTF)
the construction industry. Leads on best practice for local
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Tel: 01793-444100 (EPSRC) government clients.
The Office for Science and Technology acts to www.epsrc.ac.uk

• The Central Government Task
plan, develop and manage UK involvement in Tel: 01793-413000 (ESRC) Force (CGTF)
the European Union’s science and technology www.esrc.ac.uk
activities. Proposals under the EU’s sixth Leads on best practice for central
framework Programme on research provide government clients
significant opportunities for partnership funding
for Construction related research. LINK is a
collaborative R&I programme supported by
government departments, Research Councils
and industry.
Tel: 020 7215 6428
www.ost.gov.uk
Tel: 020 7630 0001 (LINK Co-ordinator)
www.dti.gov.uk/ost/link
Annex G
GLOSSARY ??
BERD Business Expenditure on R&D EPSRC Engineering and Physical Sciences

Research Council.
BRAC The Building Regulations Advisory Committee
ESRC Economic and Social Research Council
BRE The Building Research Establishment
FBE Foundation for the Built Environment
BSRIA The Building Services Research and
Information Association GCCP Government Construction Clients Panel
CABE The Commission for Architecture in the HEFCE Higher Education Funding Council for England
Built Environment
HSE Health and Safety Executive
CBI Conseil International du Baitment (International
ICE Institute of Civil Engineers
Council for Building)
ICT Information and Communication Technology
CBPP The Construction Best Practice Programme
IRO Independent Research Organisations
CID Construction Industry Directorate (of DTI)
M4I Movement for Innovation
CIC The Construction Industry Council
MBRAs Member Based Research Associations
CIRIA The Construction Industry Research and
Information Association OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development
CIRM Construction Innovation & Research
Management Division (of DTI) OGC Office of Government Commerce
CRISP The Construction Research and Innovation ONS Office for National Statistics
Strategy Panel
PiI Partners in Innovation
DCMS Department of Culture, Media and Sport
PSR Public Sector Research
DETR The former Department of the Environment,
R&D Research and Development
Transport and the Regions.
RAE Research Assessment Exercise
DTI The Department of Trade and Industry
RAs Research Associations
DTLR The Department of Transport, Local
Government and the Regions RMCs Research Management Contractors
EA Environment Agency SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
ECI European Construction Institute SPRU The Science and Technology Policy
Research Unit
ENBRI European Network of Building Research
Institutes SCI Steel Construction Institute
ENCORD European Network of Construction Research TCS Teaching Company Scheme
and Development
TRADA Timber Research and Development Association
TWI The Welding Institute
UCAS Universities and Colleges Admissions Service
Printed in the UK on recycled paper with a minimum HMSO score of 75.

February 2002. Department of Trade and Industry. http://www.dti.gov.uk/
© Crown Copyright. DTI/Pub XXXX/XXk/02/02/NP. URN 02/641
96 Rethinking Construction Innovation and Research: A Review of Government R&D Policies and Practices
SUBCONTRACTING AND COOPERATION
NETWORK IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: A
LITERATURE REVIEW
Julio Y. Shimizu1 and Francisco F. Cardoso2
ABSTRACT
Owing to recent structural transformations in the construction sector in many countries
like Brazil, production is much more subcontracted nowadays than in the past.
Consequently, supply chain management became more important, including the
management of subcontractors.
Cooperation networks appear to be an advantageous way of supply chain organization,
which is beneficial to subcontractors and building firms. Cooperation networks are
consequences of strategic alliances between some agents of the supply chain. Such firms,
organized together, cooperate, reaching better results than they would obtain individually.
With the main focus on subcontractors and building constructors, this paper, based on
a literature review, seeks to deal with the decision of make or buy (subcontracting) and to
analyze its importance in the formation and development of cooperation networks in
building construction. Brazilian current management practices that happen in constructor
firm-subcontractor relationship are described, as well as a parallel with the case of Great
Britain. About stimulating cooperation networks in the sector, some actions are also
quoted.
It can be said that supply chain integration in a cooperation network through strategic
partnering is a key success factor for increasing competitive advantages in the sector.
KEYWORDS
Supply chain management, subcontractor, cooperation network, lean construction,
building construction.
1
M.Sc. Student, Civil Construction Engineering Department, Escola Politecnica, University of Sao
Paulo. CNPq grants. Av Prof Almeida Prado, travessa 2, 83, Sao Paulo, SP, 05508-900, Brazil, phone
+55 11/3091-5422, fax +55 11/3091-5544, julio.shimizu@poli.usp.br
2
Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Civil Construction Engineering Department, Escola Politecnica, University
of Sao Paulo. Av Prof Almeida Prado, travessa 2, 83, Sao Paulo, SP, 05508-900, Brazil, phone +55
11/3091-5469, fax +55 11/3091-5715, francisco.cardoso@poli.usp.br

Julio Y. Shimizu and Francisco F. Cardoso 2
INTRODUCTION
Lean production consists of a complex cocktail of ideas, including continuous
improvement, lean organization structures, teamwork, elimination of waste, efficient use of
resources and cooperative supply chain management. These aspects have been challenged
by authors like Koskela (1992) and Howell and Ballard (1994), and discussed by others,
like Green (1999) and Garnett et al. (1998).
Koskela (1992) was a pioneer in applying lean production ideas to construction. He
proposed the need to understand construction production as a combination of conversion
and flow processes and not as a mere number of disjointed conversion processes.
Lean construction philosophy deals with the production process and aims at the
adoption of methodologies that allow for the attainment of favorable results in terms of
generation of aggregate value to product, without implying cost increase or quality loss. It
relies on five principles of the Lean Thinking philosophy: value, value stream, flow, pull
and perfection (Womack and Jones 1996). As consequences of the implementation of this
philosophy, the following can be mentioned: systematic waste reduction, operational costs
reduction and attainment of commitment and teamwork qualification (Contador 1998).
The central themes of lean construction have been eliminating waste and improving
workflow in construction (London and Kenley 2001).
According to Amato Neto (1999), some changes in the modern capitalist world, such
as the emergence of new technologies, imposed changes in the organizational structure of
enterprises. In this context, the advent of the lean production paradigm has produced new
kinds of inter-firms relationships. One form of inter-firm relationship is cooperation
network among companies operating within the same production chain, which can create
synergy of positive impacts, the so-called ‘collective efficiency’3.
Even if the lean production concepts are more related to the firms themselves, in the
‘micro’ level, they can be extended to the ‘mezzo’ or medium one, concerning relationship
between firms, in an industry. This relationship deals with market aspects, but also with
general ones, like technology, organization, manpower, design, etc.
In this way, the purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussions about the decision of
make or buy (subcontracting) and about the constitution of cooperation networks in
construction industry and also to highlight the importance of partnering for building
industry improvements. The study is based on the analysis of a large number of
publications about correlated subjects.
Focusing mainly on subcontractors and building constructors, this paper seeks to
discuss two types of partnering (project and strategic) and to analyze its importance in
formation and development of cooperation networks in building construction.
LITERATURE REVIEW
VERTICAL INTEGRATION
Vertical integration involves a variety of decisions concerning whether corporations,
through their business units, should provide certain goods or services in-house or purchase
3
Hubert Schimitz defines collective efficiency as the competitive advantage derived from local external
economies and joint action. See more details in Schimitz, H. (1995). "Collective Efficiency: Growth
Path for Small-Scale Industry". The Journal of Development Studies, 31 (4), 529-566.

Subcontracting and Cooperation Network in Building Construction: a literature review 3
them, instead (Harrigan 1985). The strategy of vertical integration consists in defining if a
company will make or buy its basic inputs and jobs.
Porter (1980) defines vertical integration as the production processes combination,
distribution, sales and/or other distinct production processes within the borders of the
same company.
The general question of vertical integration is the extent to which a firm is directly
responsible for producing all of the inputs required for its products (Eccles 1981). Thus, if
the company decides to acquire some inputs from other firms, the main question turns into
the efficient management of these relationships.
Among the benefits of vertical integration are: reduction of transaction costs4,
guaranteed supply of features, improved internal coordination, broader technological
capacity and biggest difficulty of entering the market (Buzzell 1983).
The disadvantages of vertical integration are: need of high investments, flexibility
reduction to demand, variation of market and specialization loss, because the organization
is concentrated on some production processes, still according to the same author.
The adequate development of the integration strategies, according to Krippaehne
(1992), requires the following actions by the firms:
• to prevent the internal development of capacities that can be satisfied by
external firms;
• to develop good relations with the group of subcontractors and suppliers they
work with;
• to appeal to other pre-qualified firms to monitor the conditions of market price
and technology;
• to reduce its amount of work performed with proper features, disintegrating in
some way, mainly in the case of those with low profit margin;
• to be aware that, whichever the strategy adopted, it must be constantly revised.
Harrigan (1983) describes four generic strategies of vertical integration, each with different
degrees of transferences and different internal investments and each implying bargaining
power with adjacent industries. These strategies are described as follows:
• Full integrated strategies: the fully integrated firms internally buy or sell all of
their requirements for a particular material or service internally. They have the
highest degree of internal integration (Harrigan 1983).
• Taper-integrated strategies: taper-integrated firms rely on outsiders for a
portion of their requirements. Taper integration means that the firm purchases
or sells the remainder through specialized supplier, distributor, or competitors
that are not so integrated (Harrigan 1983).
4
Transaction costs are the costs of running the economic system, or simply the costs of carrying out any
exchange, whether between firms in a marketplace or a transfer of resources between stages in a
vertically integrated firm. They are the economic equivalent of friction in physical systems. See more
details in Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism - Firms, Markets,
Relational Contraction. New York, The Free Press. See also Hobbes, J.E. (1996). "A Transactional
Cost Approach to Supply Chain Management". Supply Chain Management, 1 (2), 16-27.

• Quasi-integration: quasi-integrated firms need not own 100 percent of the

adjacent business units in question, but they may consume or distribute all,
some, or none of the outputs or inputs of the adjacent, quasi-integrated unit
(Harrigan 1983).
• Nonintegrated strategies: firms simply buy raw materials or assemblies as
needed.
SUBCONTRACTING
Subcontracting has been presented as an organizational alternative for some economic
activities (Beardsworth 1988). Firms are decentralizing their jobs more and more, allowing
subcontracting to become a basic part of the work organization.
Veltz (2000) points out that the firm does not need to have the control of all the value
string, being able to externalize non-strategical activities, aiming to reduce costs.
Pagnani (1989) defines subcontracting as a legal-economic relationship between two
agents, in which the characteristic criteria are substitution and subordination. The
substitution criterion means that the subcontractor executes the operation with technical
and financial risks, instead of the job assignor; the subordination criterion means the
subcontractor must follow the direction given by the contractor.
Some main aspects involved in job subcontracting, for the case of buildings
construction, are analyzed in Table 1.
Table 1: Aspects of subcontracting in building construction
Aspects Comments
Flexibility Subcontracting appears as an answer to market uncertainties.
Quality Subcontracting, on the one hand, can improve product quality because it uses specialized manpower
and, on the other hand, can get worse, because it leads to problems of control and coordination.
Costs Fixed costs become smaller, while transaction costs increase. Fixed costs are lesser because
subcontracting eliminates equipment maintenance and underutilized manpower. Transaction costs
can become bigger, because each new contract negotiation can involve some proposals by
subcontractors.
Productivity Subcontracting tends to further tie the laborer to the firm subcontractor. Thus, the effects of
replication, continuity and learning lead to higher productivity by the manpower. Easy access to
specialized equipment and constant training also lead to higher productivity.
Controls Controlling the quality of work is difficult with subcontracting, because the high amount of
independent organizations in the site makes the control of work progress difficult.
Planning The intensive subcontracting of manpower makes the planning process difficult. Moreover,
conflicting interests can intervene negatively with the programming of activities.
Technology Market instability leads the contracting firms not to establish stable agreements with the
subcontractors, thus not allowing technology transfer.
Training The contractors tend to pass the responsibility of training to the subcontractors, but generally they
are not apt to accomplish it, due to financial features and the lack of time for training.
Safety at work The final responsibility for the safety at work falls on the contracting company, as well as the
implementation of a safety program, the commitment and supervision of the subcontractors. The
disinterest of the contractor in investing in programs of safety for floating and unknown workers
and the lack of familiarity of the workers with the working atmosphere aggravates this problem.
Consumption of Subcontracting can magnify materials waste; subcontractors tend to finish the job as fast as
materials possible, without controlling the use of materials.
Adapted from Shimizu and Cardoso (2002).
According to Bennett and Ferry (1990), building firms are organized into a consistent
operating core based on their individual capabilities. Construction companies are becoming

construction managers or contractor managers, transferring construction work to

specialists.
Subcontractors are specialist agents in the execution of a specific job, supplying
manpower, besides materials, equipment, tools or designs. They respond only for the
executed part of the workmanship, acting as agents of the production system of the
contractor company.
According to Tommelein and Ballard (1997), specialty contractors are construction
‘job shops’, performing construction work that requires skilled labor from one or at most a
few specific trades and for which they have acquired special-purpose tools and equipment
as well as process know-how.
In the United States, in many projects, particularly building projects, it is common for
80-90% of the work to be performed by subcontractors (Hinze and Tracey 1994).
Villagarcia and Cardoso (1999) state that during the last years subcontracting has
increased in Sao Paulo (Brazil), and it is known that, to date, subcontracting achieves
similar levels to the ones mentioned by Hinze and Tracey.
Subcontractors classification focuses on the kind of activities they perform. Table 2
shows three types of classification of subcontractors in building construction, organized by
Brazilian authors.
Table 2: Classification of subcontractors in building construction.
Author Classification Examples activities

Farah (1993) subcontractors of basic activity formwork, mortar, concrete, masonry, rendering and
ceramic coatings
subcontractors of stages and specialized jobs done by workers with specific qualifications
jobs
Villacreses subcontractors of basic activity formwork, mortar, concrete, masonry,
(1994) rendering and ceramic coatings
subcontractors of special techniques electric fittings, plumbing, air conditioning
subcontractors of special work and/or external waterproofing, painting, floor, glasses,
materials external rendering, foundations
Pereira (2001) subcontractors supplying manpower masonry, painting
subcontractors supplying manpower and electric fittings, plumbing, joinery
materials
subcontractors supplying manpower, waterproofing, gypsum wallboard
materials and designs
subcontractors supplying manpower, air conditioning, sprinkler-system, special fittings
materials, designs and maintenance
Adapted from Farah (1993), Villacreses (1994) and Pereira (2001).
Note that in Pereira’s classification there is an enlargement of the subcontractors role from
the first to the last type. This classification seems to be more appropriate for the purpose
of this paper.
PARTNERING
Partnering has been seen as a tool for improving the performance of the construction
process and emphasizes the way it helps to create synergy and maximize the effectiveness
of each participant’s resources (Barlow et al. 1997).
The Construction Industry Institute defines partnering as a long-term commitment
between two or more organizations for the purpose of achieving specific business
objectives by maximizing the effectiveness of each participant’s resources. This requires

changing traditional relationships to a shared culture without regard to organizational

boundaries. The relationship is based upon trust, dedication to common goals, and an
understanding of each other’s individual expectations and values (Barlow et al. 1997).
To date, partnering is understood as a set of collaborative processes, which emphasizes
the importance of common goals. The base of partnering is a high level of
interorganisational trust and the presence of mutually beneficial goals. Partnering means a
management process that helps the strategic planning to improve the efficiency of the
enterprises, and forms a team with common objectives (Barlow et al. 1997).
Participants of a project can improve performance in terms of cost, time, quality,
buildability, fitness-to-purpose and a whole of range of other criteria, if they adopt more
collaborative ways of working (Bresnen and Marshall 2000). According to the same
authors, partnering aims to reduce the adversarialism which is said to be typical in the
industry and which has confounded previous attempts to encourage better integration and
cooperation between contractual partners.
Barlow et al. (1997) mention six successful factor of partnering: building trust,
teambuilding, the need for top level commitment, the importance of individuals, the
strategic movement of key personnel, and the need of open and flexible communications.
The same authors quote as common benefits in a partnering relation: reduced costs,
shortened delivery time, improvement in construction quality, better working atmosphere,
and organizational learning.
Partnering classification focus on the duration of cooperation between partners. Two
main types of partnering are found in literature: project partnering and strategic partnering
or long-term partnering.
Project partnering is a cooperative relationship between organizations for the duration
of a specific project (Barlow et al. 1997). At the end of the project, the relationship is
terminated and another partnering may commence on the next project (Kumaraswamy and
Matthews 2000). Welling and Kamann (2001) state that if these firms do not meet again in
another project, the learning effect reached on the particular project will be eliminated.
Strategic partnering is a relationship with a high level of cooperation between partners
(Barlow et al. 1997), which takes place when two or more firms use partnering on a long-
term basis to undertake more than one construction project, or some continuing activity
(Kumaraswamy and Matthews 2000). In this kind of partnering, the learning achieved in a
specific project is more likely to be used in future projects.
In the context of a strategic partnering, it becomes a management philosophy that is
expected to work continuously for each and every project and there are more expectations
from team members than for a project partnering (Cheng and Li 2001).
COOPERATION NETWORK
The term network refers to a set of nodes and relationships that are connected. Grandori
and Soda (1995), focusing on organizational theory, see networks as nexuses of
integration mechanisms encompassing all the range of organizational inter-firms
coordination and cooperation. The proposition is that networks compete with networks,
rather than simply firms with firms. It follows that networks encompass both upstream and
downstream firms (Lamming et al. 2000).
In consummate cooperation, both parties work together to a mutual end, responding
flexibly, sharing skills and information (Welling and Kamann 2001).
Networks differ in terms of degree of complexity, concentration of power balance,
environmental diversity and stage of network development (Harland et al. 2001). Grandori

and Soda’s (1995) classification centers on power balance and divides networks in: (1)
symmetric, parity-based or equity networks and (2) asymmetric, centralized or non-equity
networks. Williamson (1985) classifies networks according to their behavior: (1)
opportunistic networks and (2) non-opportunistic networks. These classifications are
important because they will influence the way a firm can manage its cooperation network,
as discussed below.
COOPERATION NETWORKS FORMATION AND DEVELOPMENT
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

The construction industry is dependent on subcontractors and on suppliers of building
materials. However, it is characterized by opportunistic behavior and the lack of vertical
cooperation (Welling and Kamann 2001). This happens because of the industry traditional
approach of the organizational structure of the construction process, which results in a
subordinate position for subcontractors within the hierarchy of relationships forming the
traditional design-management-construction process. Consequently, main contractor-
subcontractor relationships are often found to be strained and adversarial (Dainty et al.
2001).
The French project organization seems to be a particular case. Winch and Campagnac
(1995) call it ‘co-contracting’, where the principal contractor is directly responsible for
the structural works, which it carried out mainly with its own directly employed work-
force and where the finishing trades contractors are placed in direct contact with the
client and the principal contractor is paid a fee for their management.
Construction industry, compared with others, lags behind in terms of cooperation.
However, some care must be taken when comparing construction with other industries
(Welling and Kamann 2001):
• The governance of transactions in construction supply chain differs from mass
assembly and process technologies.
• Construction is not one supply chain, but a series of distinct chains, with
unique properties that are complex and difficult to coordinate.
• Construction projects require a unique combination of labor and material
inputs, performed and coordinated on site, lacking controlled factory
environments.
• Organization and management of a construction project almost invariably
involves interlinkages among a number of organizations. These organizations
generally differ in size, culture, skill level, specialty, automated information
systems and methods of production control.
Eccles (1981) points out that all of these organizations have to cooperate in some way in
order to combine their resources. At a certain time, a number of these organizations will be
simultaneously involved in the project and, given the dependence path of activities, the
work of one firm cannot proceed until the work of several others has been completed.
PARTNERING IMPORTANCE FOR COOPERATION NETWORKS

Studies of customer-supplier collaboration have shown that major benefits may be
achieved when firms adapt to one another (Dubbois and Gadde 2000).

Corbett et al. (1999) state that failing to collaborate results in the distortion of
information, which can lead to costly inefficiencies. Through a more open, frequent and
accurate exchange of information, typical of a strategic partnering, companies can
eliminate many of these problems and ensure ongoing improvement.
Howell (1999) points out that partnering provides the opportunity for collaborative
redesign of the planning system to support close coordination and reliable workflow.
Nevertheless, this author also says that partnering without a change in project and
production management philosophy typically fails, because the mere act of partnering does
not change the way the work is done.
The development of trust between organizations is seen as a function of the length of
the relationship between them, and the mechanisms that led to this alignment (repetition,
routine, understanding) are largely viewed as informal (Bresnen and Marshall 2000).
Although the advantages of project partnering are not regarded as equal to strategic
partnering, the fact that it is considered possible to cause change over the timescale of a
single project is indicative of the view that partnering can be engineered and does not have
to evolve ‘naturally’ (Bresnen and Marshall 2000).
Thus, in the short term, contractors may be willing to absorb any extra costs in order
to develop or maintain a relationship. However, such an approach may be unsustainable in
the long run (Bresnen and Marshall 2000).
In rival networks, firms may behave opportunistically, gaining at the expense of other
firms. These networks play a zero-sum game, i.e. a situation where for one party to gain,
another must lose (Jones 1990). Jones still points out that most networks are rivals, basing
decisions primarily on price.
CURRENT PRACTICE
Brazil
In this item, based on Shimizu and Cardoso (2002), the Brazilian current management
practices that happen in constructor firm-subcontractor relationship are characterized.
As some Brazilian authors like Serra (2001) have already signaled, subcontractors are
generally subordinated to the wills of the constructors, in which the imposition of the
decisions of the latter prevails most of the time. In general, subcontractors can only choose
between ‘accepting the agreement job’ according to criteria defined by the constructor or
‘to refuse the job’. About the selection of subcontractors, the market focuses only on
price.
About the relation between constructors and subcontractors, one is dissatisfied with
the other: on the one hand, constructors state that the low organizational level of
subcontractors makes the relation difficult; on the other hand, subcontractors assure that
constructors usually take advantage of high competition to impose low prices. As Pereira
(2001) has shown, this conflict can go beyond the contract phase, and is kept all along the
project. This is particularly true in the case of subcontractors belonging to the two first
levels of Pereira’s classification, presented in Table 2, but less evident in the case of
subcontractors supplying manpower, materials, designs and maintenance.
Excluding relationships concerning this last type of subcontractors, the lack of
partnering relations between Brazilian contractors and subcontractors is noted.
Nevertheless, this characteristic can rapidly change, as subcontractors tend to enlarge their
role in the construction process, also supplying materials, design and maintenance.

A parallel: Great Britain

Brazilian reality is similar to that of other countries. Dainty et al. (2001) conducted a
research with 20 subcontractors in Great Britain and concluded that companies
interviewed generally held negative views of partnering and believed that some main
contractors did not understand the principles of partnering and strategic alliances, or that
their motivations for adopting such practices were not for reasons of engendering mutual
trust.
The same authors add that directors of subcontractors viewed partnering, such as
open-book accounting, merely as mechanisms for main contractors to drive down their
profits. They also state that the barriers identified were seen as being symptomatic of a
lack of understanding and empathy with subcontractors’ needs by main contractors,
particularly with regard to cost and payment issues.
Another conclusion of the Dainty et al. research was that subcontractors blamed the
lack of trust between the parties on the adversarial nature of their working relationships
that had characterized the industry operation for many years. Indeed, the cultural issue of
mistrust between the parties was seen as a fundamental barrier to increase understanding
of each other’s needs and to further integration.
Therefore, rethinking the production system design according to lean construction
philosophy can be a good opportunity to change the organizational structure of the
players, this being a prerequisite for successful partnering. The question is how multi-
organizational structures should be designed to effectively execute lean production systems
and bring together contractors and subcontractors.
According to Welling and Kamann (2001), construction firms do not seem to take
advantage of opportunities to make use of external resources through new organizational
forms, such as cooperation, networking and strategic alliances, which are increasingly
emphasized as critical factors in successfully running organizations.
This lack of cooperation is influenced by some surrounding economic conditions, like
focus on price, short term vision and great competition, which predispose contractual
partners to act, for a very rational economic reason, in more ‘traditional’, adversarial and
even exploitative ways.
Many problems referred directly and indirectly to insufficient coordination,
communication, and thus commitment, such as failures to inform about schedule changes,
late information of deliveries, and lack of feedback procedures (Vrijhoef et al. 2001),
mainly related to failures in the production system.
However, it is important to list some good experiences related in literature. One
example is Barlow et al. (1997), whose research explored the managerial process involved
in five client-led partnering arrangements, encompassing over 40 firms.
STIMULATING COOPERATION NETWORKS

The central tenet of the building industry is that the greater provision of integration will
solve many of the problems that fragmentation has caused within the sector (Dainty et al.
2001). The key barriers to greater integration seem to stem from the historical
fragmentation of project delivery system, and the contractual and adversarial nature of
construction project relationships.
Some arguments in the literature state that not only the players themselves are in
charge of such integration. Dainty et al. (2001) have signaled the role of those at the head
of the production process, pointing towards two specifics needs for better integration: a

greater degree of client leadership in order to drive the integration process and an
insistence on transparent and mutually beneficial processes for all parties in the supply
chain.
Another important issue is minimizing conflicts arousing from these relations. Welling
and Kamann (2001) recommend the following actions for the management of these
relations in the construction:
• Structuring relationships in such a way that there are frequent and durable
interactions among specific individuals.
• Appointing account managers and asking firms that are part of the permanent
network to do the same should create recurrent meetings among people and
this, in turn, should stimulate cooperative relations.
• Monitoring current behavior and experiences and pooling this information
enables project managers to share experiences.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has given a brief, and by no means exhaustive, overview of some of the main
issues arising from current research on cooperation network.
The need of strategies analysis that makes the construction sector more competitive is
noticed. Amongst these strategies, the vertical disintegration (subcontracting) appears as a
good alternative, providing flexibility, lean structures, productivity, and costs reduction,
amongst other advantages.
The use of partnering appears as a possibility of getting the advantages and reducing
the disadvantages of subcontracting, through the maintenance of stable and beneficial
relationships. It is clear that the advantages of project partnering are not regarded as equal
to strategic partnering, but a project partnering has its benefits. Besides, a project
partnering may evolve to a strategic partnering in the future. Even if a relationship between
firms does not automatically make it a ‘perfect team’, there is always the potential. Teams
develop as the involved parties experiment with various connections and learn from the
developments. This is particularly important in Brazil, where subcontractors tend to
expand their role in the construction process.
Although there are some good examples of strategic partnerships that have led to
considerable improvements in construction project delivery (see Barlow et al. 1997) these
have been largely restricted to client-contractor linkages, as opposed to developing
strategic alliances throughout all the supply chain.
The truth is that strategic partnering alliances are not frequent in the construction
industry and that cooperation network is a concept that is very far from current
management practices in this sector.
An effective integration is unlikely to be possible without fundamentally rethinking the
current inter-organization relationships and dynamics that exist within the construction
industry. A change in this situation will require main contractors to make efforts to address
the integration and partnership of smaller companies as well as client organizations. Even if
the lean construction concepts are more related to firms, they can be extended to this level,
as some authors mentioned in this paper have already done.

REFERENCES
Amato Neto, J. (1999). “Productive Cooperation Networks as a Competitive Advantage
for Small and Medium Size Firms in the State of Sao Paulo (Brazil)”. 44th International
Conference of Small Business, Naples, Italy, June.
Barlow, J.; Cohen, M.; Jashapara, A.; Simpson, Y. (1997). Partnering: revealing the
realities in the construction industry. Policy Press, Bristol, UK, 75pp.
Beardsworth, A.D. et al. (1988). “Management, Transience and Subcontracting: the Cases
of the Construction Site”. Journal of Management Studies, ASCE, 25(6), 603-625.
Bennett, J. and Ferry, D. (1990). “Specialist Contractors: A Review of Issues Raised by
their New Role in Building”. Construction Management and Economics, 8, 259-263.
Bresnen, M. and Marshall, N. (2000). “Partnering in Construction: a Critical Review of
Issues, Problems and Dilemmas”. Construction Management and Economics, 18 (2), 229-
237.
Buzzell, R.D. (1993). “Is vertical integration profitable?” Harvard Business Review,
Jan/Feb, 92-102.
Cheng, E.W. and Li, H. (2001). “Development of a conceptual model of construction
partnering”. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 8 (4), 292-303.
Contador, J.C. (1998). Gestão de operações. Editora Edgard Blücher, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Corbett, C. J.; Blackburn, J.D. and Wassenhove, L.N.V. (1999). “Partnerships to improve
Supply Chains”. Sloan Management Review, summer, 71-82.
Dainty, A.R.; Briscoe, G.H. and Millett, S.J. (2001). “Subcontractor Perspectives on
Supply Chain Alliances”. Construction Management and Economics, 19, 841-848.
Dubbois, A. and Gadde, L.E. (2000). “Supply Strategy and Networks Effects - Purchasing
behavior in the Construction Industry”. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, 2, 207-205.
Eccles, R.G. (1981). “The quasi-firm in the construction industry”. Journal of Economic
Behavior and Organization, 2, 335-357.
Farah, M.F.S. (1993). “Estratégias empresariais e mudanças no processo de trabalho na
construção habitacional do Brasil”. In Portuguese. V Encontro Nacional de Tecnologia do
Ambiente Construído, Sao Paulo, Brazil, November17 - 19.
Garnett, N., Jones, D.T. and Murray, S.(1998). “Strategic Application of Lean Thinking”.
Proc. 6th Ann. Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, Guaruja, Brazil, August13-15.
Grandori, A. and Soda, G. (1995). “Inter-firm Network: Antecedents, Mechanisms and
Forms”. Organization Studies, 16 (2), 183-214.
Green, S.D. (1999). “The Missing Arguments of Lean Construction”. Construction
Management and Economics, 17, 133-137.
Harland, C.M.; Lamming, R.C.; Zheng, J. and Johnsen, T.E. (2001). “A Taxonomy of
Supply Network”. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, fall, 21-27.
Harrigan, K.R. (1983). Strategies for vertical integration. Lexington Books,
Massachusetts, USA, 347 pp.

Harrigan, K.R. (1985). “Vertical integration and corporate strategy”. Academy of

Management Journal, 28 (2), 397-425.
Hinze, J. and Tracey, A. (1994). “The Contractor-Subcontractor Relationship: The
Subcontractor’s View”. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE,
120 (2), 274-287.
Howell, G.A. (1999). “What is Lean Construction - 1999”. Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. Intl.
Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley, CA, July 26-28.
Howell, G. and Ballard, G. (1994). “Lean Production Theory: Moving Beyond ‘Can-Do’”.
Proc. 2nd Ann. Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, Santiago, Chile, September 28-
30.
Jones, C. (1990). “Strategic Supply Chain Management”. 5th International Conference of
the Operation Management Association, England, 26-27 June.
Koskela, L. (1992). “Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction”.
Technical Report 72, CIFE, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, CA.
Krippaehne, R.C.; Mccullouch, B.G. and Vanegas, J.A. (1992). “Vertical business
integration strategies for construction”. Journal of Management in Engineering, ASCE,
892, 153-166.
Kumaraswamy, M.M. and Matthews, J.D. (2000). “Improved subcontractor selection
employing partnering principles”. Journal of Management in Engineering, 16 (3), 47-56.
Lamming, R.; Johnsen, T.; Zheng, J. and Harland, C. (2000). “An Initial Classification of
Supply Networks”. Intl. Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20 (6), 675-
691.
London, K.A. and Kenley, R. (2001). “An Industrial Organization Economic Supply Chain
Approach for the Construction Industry: a Review”. Construction Management and
Economic, 19, 777-788.
Pagnani, E.M. (1989). A subcontratação na pequena e média empresa. Sao Paulo,
UNICAMP Press.
Pereira, S.R. (2001). Competitividade na construção de edifícios: o papel dos
subempreiteiros: evolução dos métodos construtivos e problemas afeitos à mão-de-obra
de produção. São Paulo. In Portuguese. M.Sc. Thesis (intermediate report). Escola
Politecnica, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo.
Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy. Free Press, USA.
Serra, S.M.B (2001). Gestão de Subempreiteiros. In Portuguese. PhD Thesis. Escola
Politecnica, University of São Paulo, Sao Paulo.
Shimizu, J.Y. and Cardoso, F.F. (2002). “Os Processos Gerenciais Internos de Empresas
Subempreiteiras do Subsetor Edificações da Região Metropolitana de São Paulo”. In
Portuguese. IX Encontro Nacional de Tecnologia do Ambiente Construído, Foz do
Iguaçu, May 7-10.
Tommelein, I.D. and Ballard, G. (1997). “Coordinating Specialists”. Technical Report No.
97-98, Construction Engineering and Management Program, Civil and Environmental
Engineering Department, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

Veltz, P.(2000). Le nouveau monde industriel. Le débat Gallimard. Paris.

Villacreses, X.E.V. (1994). Análise estratégica da subcontratação em empresas de
construção de pequeno porte. In Portuguese. M.Eng. Thesis. Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Porto Alegre.
Villargacia, S. and Cardoso, F.F. (1999). “New Supply Chain Network in Brazil’s House
Construction Industry”. Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. Intl. Group for Lean Construction, Berkeley,
CA, July 26-28.
Vrijhoef, R.; Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2001). “Understanding construction supply
chains: an alternative interpretation.” Proc. 9th Ann. Conf. Intl. Group for Lean
Construction, Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore, August 6-8.
Welling, D.Th. and Kamann, D.J.F. (2001). “Vertical Cooperation in the Construction
Industry: Size does Matter”. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, fall 2001, 28-33.
Williamson, O.E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of capitalism - Firms, Markets,
Relational Contraction. New York, The Free Press.
Winch, G. and Campagnac, E. (1995). “The organization of building projects: an Anglo /
French comparison”. Construction Management and Economics, 13, 3-14.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1996). Lean Thinking. Simon&Schuster, New York, USA.

What is Lean Construction - 1999
WHAT IS LEAN CONSTRUCTION - 1999

Gregory A. Howell1
ABSTRACT
The origins of lean production are reviewed and a claim made that it is a new form of
production management, that is neither mass nor craft. Then the applicability of lean
production in construction is considered and nature of lean construction discussed in
comparison with current practice.
KEY WORDS
Lean construction, lean production, production management
1
P.E., Director, Lean Construction Institute, Box 1003, Ketchum, ID 83340, 208/726-
9989, fax: 208/726-0699, ghowell@micron.net
Proceedings IGLC-7 1
Howell
INTRODUCTION
Lean construction much like current practice has the goal of better meeting customer needs
while using less of everything. But unlike current practice, lean construction rests on
production management principles, the “physics1” of construction. The result is a new project
delivery system that can be applied to any kind of construction but is particularly suited for
complex, uncertain, and quick projects.
HISTORY OF LEAN PRODUCTION

Lean production was developed by Toyota led by Engineer Ohno. He was a smart if difficult
person dedicated to eliminating waste. The term “lean” was coined by the research team
working on international auto production to reflect both the waste reduction nature of the
Toyota production system and to contrast it with craft and mass forms of production
(Womack et al. 1991). Engineer Ohno shifted attention to the entire production system from
the narrow focus of craft production on worker productivity and mass production on
machine. Ohno followed the work of Henry Ford and continued the development of flow
based production management. But unlike Ford who had an almost unlimited demand for a
standard product, Ohno wanted to build cars to customer order. Starting from efforts to
reduce machine set up time and influenced by TQM, he developed a simple set of objectives
for the design of the production system: Produce a car to the requirements of a specific
customer, deliver it instantly, and maintain no inventories or intermediate stores.
Waste is defined by the performance criteria for the production system. Failure to meet
the unique requirements of a client is waste, as is time beyond instant and inventory standing
idle. A morning cup of coffee serves as an example. Instant delivery is possible but we must
either have an intermediate inventory, coffee in the pot, or accept a cup of “instant” which
hardly meets requirements of someone craving a low-fat double latte.
Moving toward zero waste, perfection, shifts the improvement focus from the activity to
the delivery system. Engineer Ohno and other Japanese engineers were familiar with mass
production of cars from their plant visits in the United States. Where US managers saw
efficiency, Ohno saw waste at every turn. He understood that the pressure to keep each
machine running at maximum production led to extensive intermediate inventories he called
“the waste of over production.” And he saw defects built into cars because of the pressure to
keep the assembly line moving. Production at all costs meant defects were left in cars as they
passed down the line. These defects disrupted down stream work and left completed cars
riddled with embedded defects. Where the US approach aimed to keep the machines running
and the line moving to minimize the cost of each part and car, Ohno’s system design criteria
set a multi-dimensioned standard of perfection that prevented sub-optimization and promoted
continuous improvement.
Zero time delivery of a car meeting customer requirements, with nothing in inventory
required tight coordination between the progress of each car down the line and the arrival of
1
The idea of a “physics” of production is borrowed from “Factory Physics”, an excellent
text on production management (Hopp and Spearman 1996).
2 26-28 July 1999, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

parts from supply chains. Rework due to errors could not be tolerated as it reduced
throughput, the time to make a car from beginning to end, and caused unreliable workflow.
And coordinating the arrival of parts assigned to a particular car would be impossible if the
movement of the car was unreliable.
Engineer Ohno went so far as to require workers to stop the line on receipt of a defective
part or product from upstream. (Only the plant manager could stop the line in US plants.)
Working to eliminate rework makes sense from a system perspective, but stopping the line
looks very strange to people who are trying to optimize performance of a single activity.
Stopping the line made sense to Ohno because he recognized that reducing the cost or
increasing the speed could add waste if variability was injected into the flow of work by the
“improvement.”
Requiring workers to stop the line decentralized decision making. He carried this further
when he replaced centralized control of inventory with a simple system of cards or bins
which signaled the upstream station of downstream demand. In effect, an inventory control
strategy was developed which replaced central push with distributed pull. Pull was essential
to reduce work in process (WIP). Lower WIP tied up less working capital and decreased the
cost of design changes during manufacture as only a few pieces needed to be scrapped or
altered. Large inventories are required to keep production in push systems because they are
unable to cope with uncertainties in the production system. And large inventories raise the
cost of change.
Ohno also decentralized shop floor management by making visible production system
information to everyone involved with production. “Transparency” allowed people to make
decisions in support of production system objectives and reduced the need for more senior
and central management.
As he came to better understand the demands of low waste production in manufacturing,
he moved back into the design process and out along supply chains. In an effort to reduce the
time to design and deliver a new model, the design of the production process was carefully
considered along with the design of the car. Engineering components to meet design and
production criteria was shifted to the suppliers. New commercial contracts were developed
which gave the suppliers the incentive to continually reduce both the cost of their
components and to participate in the overall improvement of the product and delivery
process. Toyota was a demanding customer but it offered suppliers continuing support for
improvement.
Lean production continues to evolve but the basic outline is clear. Design a production
system that will deliver a custom product instantly on order but maintain no intermediate
inventories. The concepts include:
• Identify and deliver value to the customer value: eliminate anything that does not
add value.
• Organize production as a continuous flow.
Howell
• Perfect the product and create reliable flow2 through stopping the line, pulling
inventory, and distributing information and decision making.
• Pursue perfection: Deliver on order a product meeting customer requirements
with nothing in inventory.
Lean production can now be understood as a new way to design and make things
differentiated from mass and craft forms of production by the objectives and techniques
applied on the shop floor, in design and along supply chains. Lean production aims to
optimize performance of the production system against a standard of perfection to meet
unique customer requirements.
LEAN CONSTRUCTION
Lean construction accepts the Ohno’s production system design criteria as a standard of
perfection. But how does the Toyota system, lean production, apply in construction? The
construction industry has rejected many ideas from manufacturing because of the belief that
construction is different. Manufacturers make parts that go into projects but the design and
construction of unique and complex projects in highly uncertain environments under great
time and schedule pressure is fundamentally different from making tin cans.
Lean production invites a closer look. Certainly the goal of a delivering a project meeting
specific customer requirements in zero time sounds like the objective for every project, and
the evidence of waste in Ohno’s terms is overwhelming. Waste in construction and
manufacturing arises from the same activity-centered thinking, “Keep intense pressure for
production on every activity because reducing the cost and duration of each step is the key to
improvement.” Ohno knew there was a better way to design and make things.
Managing construction under Lean is different from typical contemporary practice
because it;
• has a clear set of objectives for the delivery process,
• is aimed at maximizing performance for the customer at the project level,
• designs concurrently product and process, and
• applies production control throughout the life of the project.
By contrast, the current form of production management in construction is derived from the
same activity centered approach found in mass production and project management. It aims
to optimize the project activity by activity, assuming customer value has been identified in
design. Production is managed throughout a project by first breaking the project into pieces,
i.e. design and construction, then putting those pieces in a logical sequence, estimating the
time and resources required to complete each activity and therefore the project. Each piece or
activity is further decomposed until it is contracted out or assigned to a task leader, foreman
or squad boss. Control is conceived as monitoring each contract or activity against its
schedule and budget projections. These projections are rolled up to project level reports. If
2
Reliable workflow was a consequence of stopping the line rather than a stated objective.

activities or chains along the critical path fall behind, efforts are made to reduce cost and
duration of the offending activity or changing the sequence of work. If these steps do not
solve the problem, it is often necessary to trade cost for schedule by working out of the best
sequence to make progress. The focus on activities conceals the waste generated between
continuing activities by the unpredictable release of work and the arrival of needed resources.
Simply put, current forms of production and project management focus on activities and
ignore flow and value considerations (Koskela 1992, Koskela and Huovila 1997).
Managing the combined effect of dependence and variation is a first concern in lean
production. Goldratt (1986) illustrates the effects on production in “The Goal” and the
application to construction is demonstrated by Tommelein et al. (1999) in “Parade of Trades.
The problem of dependence and variation can be illustrated by what happens in heavy traffic
on a freeway. If every car drove at exactly the same speed then spacing between cars could
be very small and the capacity of the freeway would be limited by whatever speed was set.
Each car would be dependent on the one ahead to release pavement and variation would be
zero. In effect, there would be no inventory of unused pavement. In reality of course, each
car does use the pavement released to it from the car ahead but speeds vary.
Under the pressure to get to work or home, gaps between cars close and any variation in
speed demands immediate response from following cars. As the gaps close, small variations
in speed propagate along and across lanes. One small hesitation can lead to a huge standing
wave as traffic slows to a crawl. Recovery is difficult because it is impossible to get everyone
to accelerate smoothly back up to the standard speed and interval. High speed at any one
moment does not assure minimum travel time in conditions of dependence and variation. The
idea that you do not get home any faster by driving as fast and as close to the car ahead is
counter intuitive (at least to teenagers). Certainly the system itself does not function as well
when dependence is tighter and variation greater.
Managing the interaction between activities, the combined effects of dependence and
variation, is essential if we are to deliver projects in the shortest time. Minimizing the
combined effects of dependence and variation becomes a central issue for the planning and
control system as project duration is reduced and the complexity increases. (Complexity is
defined by the number of pieces or activities that can interact.) The need to improve
reliability in complex and quick circumstances is obvious. New forms of planning and
control are required.
The first goal of lean construction must be to fully understand the underlying “physics”
of production, the effects of dependence and variation along supply and assembly chains.
These physical issues are ignored in current practice which tend to focus on teamwork,
communication and commercial contracts. These more human issues are at the top of
practitioner’s lists of concerns because they do not, indeed cannot see the source of their
problems. It is not that these people are stupid, but that they lack the language and conceptual
foundation to understand the problem in physical production terms. The development of
partnering illustrates this point.
Partnering makes great sense from an activity perspective. But few realize Partnering is a
solution to the failure of central control to manage production in conditions of high
uncertainty and complexity. In these circumstances, representatives of each activity (or
contract) must be able to communicate directly with out relying on the central authority to
Howell
control message flow, and so Partnering works. From the lean understanding of the physics
of production, Partnering is evidence of a failure in production management but it provides
the opportunity for collaborative redesign of the planning system to support close
coordination and reliable work flow.
Lean supports the development of team work and a willingness to shift burdens along
supply chains. Partnering relationships coupled with lean thinking make rapid
implementation possible. Where Partnering is about building trust, lean is about building
reliability. Trust is the human attitude that arises in conditions of reliability. We are not likely
to trust one another very long if we do not demonstrate reliability. Reliability is the result of
the way systems are designed. Of course people manage systems and in current terms they do
a fine job. The problem is that production systems just do not work well when every person
tries to optimize their performance without understanding how their actions affect the larger
web.
The problem of matching labor to available work offers a good example of the difference
between the contemporary view of the workplace and lean. “Matching labor to work” means
having the resources on hand for a crew to work steadily and without interruption. Current
practice views the assignment to the crew as a sort of “mini contract” which is more or less
independent of other assignments, and sets the person in charge responsible for the
organization of resources and direction of the crew. To be fair, companies have logistics
systems that try to get the resources close to the crew and a few actually try to assemble and
assign packages of work. But the majority of foremen are responsible for the final collection
of resources and assuring that their crews can work continuously. When this approach fails to
produce acceptable results, when the numbers are bad, management assumes the foreman or
crew is not performing.
Companies typically maintain elaborate cost control systems to measure this
performance. These systems are the manifestations of the cause and effect theories operating
in the company. At the heart of this model is the belief that the crew is essentially
independent and that all costs charged to an account arise within from the effort necessary to
complete the assignment by the crew.
The lean construction view is different as it views the problem in physical production
terms. The crew works at variable rates using resources supplied at varying rates. Matching
labor to available work is a difficult systems design problem with a limited number of
“solutions.” Lean works to isolate the crew from variation in supply by providing an
adequate backlog (a safe distance between cars) or tries to maintain excess capacity in the
crew so they can speed up or slow as conditions dictate. On occasion, people acting on
intuition apply these techniques. (They drive to work on freeways.) Unfortunately neither
resource nor capacity buffers reduce the variation in supply and use rates of downstream
crews.
These problems are solved by long and predictable runs in the factories (and along the
highways of our dreams). In these stable circumstances managers can predict the work
content at each station and shift labor along the line to minimize imbalance. Such factories
are mostly dreams that have little to do with construction where we only have some idea of
the labor content of activities from previous projects.

People holding current practice dear sometimes say they are helpless victims of fate when
faced with managing uncertainty on projects. Their view is that uncertainty arises in other
activities beyond their control. The lean approach is to assure we do not contribute to
variation in work flow and to decouple when we cannot get it under control. In lean
construction as in much of manufacturing, planning and control are two sides of a coin that
keeps revolving throughout a project.
• Planning: defining criteria for success and producing strategies for achieving
objectives.
• Control: causing events to conform to plan and triggering learning and re-
planning.
Often the first question we are asked when describing a project to people unfamiliar with
lean thinking is, “What kind of contract was in force?” Next come organizational and
systems issues: “Was supervision by area or craft? Union or not? Were designers on site?
Did the owner know what they wanted?” These questions are reflections of contracting or
activity centered thinking. Lean construction rests on a production management mind. We
ask about the way work itself is planned and managed. We want to know the whether the
planning system itself is under control, the location of inventories and excess capacity, and
the extent to which the design and construction process itself supports customer value.
Lean construction embraces uncertainty in supply and use rates as the first great
opportunity and employ production planning to make the release of work to the next crew
more predictable, and then we work within the crews to understand the causes of variation.
Where current practice attacks point speed, lean construction attacks variation system wide.
Under lean, labor and work flow are closely matched when variation is under control and
activities de-coupled through capacity or resource buffers when variation is not under control
and work content unbalanced. These solutions are directed by the physics of the situation.
Where current practice assesses and attempts to control individual performance, we see the
planning system as the key to reliable work flow. Construction is different from
manufacturing in the way work is released to the crew. Work is released, moves down the
line, in manufacturing based on the design of the factory. In construction work is released by
an administrative act, planning. In this sense, construction is directives driven and so
measuring and improving planning system performance is the key to improving work flow
reliability. Measuring planning system performance reflects our understanding of cause and
effect. This is a different mind, a new novel. Once we understand physics problems at the
crew level, we see all sorts of new issues and opportunities.
Our first objective is to bring the flow of work and production itself under control. This
effort pays immediate dividends and demands the project delivery system be changed to
better support reliable work flow. These include changing how work is structured early in
design, and the organization and function of both the master project plan and lookahead
process (Ballard and Howell 1997).
Research proposed by the Lean Construction Institute follows this path. We start with
working to understand the physics of production at the task level, and then to design the
underlying systems to support high performance in Ohno’s terms. The planning system is the
Howell
logical first target, but other design, procurement and logistic systems must also be
considered. We understand that it will be necessary to change the organization to support
these redesigned systems. Here we take another page from Ohno and expect to see
distributed control replace current reliance on central control. Research efforts now underway
explore the application of pull techniques both on site and in design. Finally, we expect new
forms of commercial contract to emerge that give incentives for reliable work flow and
optimization at the deliverable-to-the-client level. In this way we move from task to system
to organization to contract.
Human issues come into play on implementation. Systems, teams, organizations,
communication and contracts do not change the physics. Their design does limit what can
happen just as physical rules place other limits. For example, the need for upstream
investment to reduce downstream variation is in conflict with current practices of buying
each piece for the lowest cost, or of pushing each crew to work quickly as opposed to
reliably. Uncertainty in work flow places great demand on communication channels as
people attempt to find some way to keep the project or their crew moving in the face of
uncertainty. But flexibility defined in this way requires slack resources and injects more
uncertainty into the flow of work. Where we see uncertainty as the consequence of the way
we manage work, they see uncertainty as environmental and beyond their control. We
operate on different theories, we tell different stories.
A pattern is beginning to emerge in implementation. Managers in most companies and on
most projects have an inflated view of the reliability of their planning system. This attitude
changes once the decision is taken to make assignments to criteria and the results come in.
New opportunities are revealed and new demands arise in all directions. Upstream changes
typically include changes in the timing and size of deliveries from fabricators. Horizontally,
coordination with other specialty contractors shifts from a central controlled push functions
to decentralized pull. Downstream, the effect of reliable work flow may be to change the way
labor is managed. One contractor now shifts labor between nearby projects because it is
possible to predict the actual demand for labor in coming weeks. Hoarding labor is reduced
and fewer workers can service more jobs.
“Value” is one area of our work that does not rest so directly on some underlying physics.
Here we are trying to understand how value is created. We believe our work will help
organize and frame the conversation between ends and means so that the implications of
early decisions are more explicit. We expect to change the design process so it will better
cope with the contending demands of uncertainty and speed, and respond to the explosion in
available technology.

RESEARCH AND THE LEAN CONSTRUCTION INSTITUTE

The Lean Construction Institute (LCI) is theory driven and theory seeking. We think nothing
is more practical than a good theory, as it explains what happens and why. For example, in
current practice a delay is often attributed to morally deficient subcontractors3.
Our theory is that such delays may be due to the combined effects of dependence and
variation working over a long supply chain and period. We can test this theory by
experimenting with techniques that reduce dependence and variation and observe the results.
New theory, that is new cause and effect models, are invisible to those holding current
theories dear. We approach problems related to production in construction first in physical
and then systems terms believing that issues of organization and contract can only be
resolved by assuring they best manage the “physics” of production. This approach is in
contrast with efforts that start with issues of motivation and contract and never to come to
grips with the work itself.
In each case we first want understand the current state of knowledge, and then form our
theories. In this stage we must understand how the function is accomplished in current
practice and the underlying mental model or theory that supports that practice. We cannot
improve what we don’t understand [insert comma] so accurate description is the first step in
solving the puzzle. Other pieces may be found in the literature, current practice, theory or
practice in related fields or the application of logic while taking a shower. Once we assemble
the pieces a new theory is revealed and we can design experiments and refine our thinking.
Common sense teaches us to break large problems into parts small enough to be solved.
We are taught “the devil is in the details”, and he often is. Traditional research and science,
like contemporary forms of project management, is built on this reductionist approach. The
LCI research agenda does not ignore the details or the resulting common sense. But LCI is
aligned with new forms of enquiry that are attempting to understand how and why “The
whole is more than the sum of its parts.” It is here in complex uncertain and quick
circumstance that we expect to make explicit the roots of conventional wisdom, make our
contributions, and redefine common sense.
CONCLUSION
Lean construction results from the application of a new form of production management to
construction. Essential features of lean construction include a clear set of objectives for the
delivery process, aimed at maximizing performance for the customer at the project level,
concurrent design of product and process, and the application of production control
throughout the life of the product from design to delivery. Significant research remains to
complete the translation to construction of lean thinking.
3
Of course the contractor may be, but we cannot know unless the contractor is embedded
in a principle based production system. By contrast we often see that behavior considered
immoral is in fact a logical response to the failure in the underlying production system.
Failure to provide labor to a project can be understood as evidence of bad upbringing.
Howell
REFERENCES
Ballard, G. (1997). “Improving Work Flow Reliability.” Proc. 7th Ann. Conf. Int’l. Group for
Lean Construction, Berkeley, CA, July 26-28, 1999
Ballard, G. and Howell, G. (1997). “Shielding Production: An Essential Step in Production
Control.” ASCE, J. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., 124 (1) 11-17.
Goldratt, E.M. and Cox, J. (1986). The Goal. Croton-on-Hudson, NY: North River Press.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (1996). Factory Physics: Foundations of Manufacturing
Management. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass.
Koskela, L. (1992). “Application of the New Production Philosophy to Construction”. Tech.
Report No. 72, CIFE, Stanford Univ., CA.
Koskela, L. and Huovila, P. (1997). “On Foundations of Concurrent Engineering.” Proc. 1st
Intl. Conf. on Concurrent Engrg. in Constr., The Instit. of Struct. Engrs., London, 22-32.
Tommelein, I.D., Riley, D.R., and Howell, G.A. (1999). “Parade Game: Impact of Work
Flow Variability on Trade Performance.” ASCE, J. of Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt., 125,
Sept./Oct. issue, in press.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., and Roos, D. (1991). The Machine That Changed The World:
The Story Of Lean Production. New York. 1st Harper Perennial Ed.

REFERENCIA DE INFORMACIÒN ADICIONAL
ICL 2005: IMPROVING CONSTRUCTION LOGISTICS
IC-P: INDUSTRIALIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION – A LEAN MODULAR

APPROACH (PAPER)
IC-S: INDUSTRIALIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION – A LEAN MODULAR

APPROACH (SLIDES)
NCT-P: NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY (PAPER)
NCT-S: NATURE OF CONSTRUCTION TECHNOLOGY (SLIDES)
ESPC: ESTUDIO SECTORIAL: PRODUCTIVIDAD EN LA

CONSTRUCCIÓN
SACNBC: SUBCONTRACTING AND COOPERATION NETWORK IN

BUILDING CONSTRUCTION: A LITERATURE REVIEW
BG: BRIDGING THE GAPS – TOWARDS A COMPREHENSIVE

UNDERSTANDING OF LEAN CONSTRUCTION
ACh: ACCELERATING CHANGE
LP: THE LAST PLANNER SYSTEM OF PRODUCTION CONTROL
WILC: WHAT IS LEAN CONSTRUCTION?
RC-2002: RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION: 2002
RCIAR: RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION INNOVATION AND RESEARCH
RC-1998: RETHINKING CONSTRUCTION – THE REPORT OF THE

CONSTRUCTION TASK FORCE
ANPPTC: APPLICATION OF THE NEW PRODUCTION PHILOSOPHY TO

CONSTRUCTION

Pontificia Universidad Católica Del Peru: Facultad de Ciencias E Ingenieria

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Pontificia Universidad Católica Del Peru: Facultad de Ciencias E Ingenieria

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA DEL PERU

FACULTAD DE CIENCIAS E INGENIERIA

“DIAGNÓSTICO Y EVALUACIÓN DE LA RELACIÓN ENTRE EL TIPO

Tesis para optar el Título Profesional de

CRISTHIAN F. CAÑA RAMOS

Lima, Agosto 2006

La presente investigación tiene por objetivos el determinar la evolución de la

Para ello se realizaron mediciones en 26 obras a nivel de Lima Metropolitana, en las

Con fines comparativos, se utilizó el criterio de evaluación del trabajo de la tesis

En cuanto al tema de subcontratos, se presenta un esquema de clasificación de la

mano de obra y, además, también se compara con un indicador basado en la

Finalmente, se establecen pautas y propuestas para orientar el trabajo de

Esta investigación es el fruto del apoyo

ii. ESTADO DEL ARTE

5.2. Procesos constructivos y sistemas estructurales....................... Pág. 26

iii. METODOLOGIA DEL TRABAJO

iv. ANALISIS DE RESULTADOS

v. IDENTIFICACION Y DESCRIPCION DE LAS PÉRDIDAS ENCONTRADAS

vi. CONCLUSIONES Y RECOMENDACIÓN

II. BIBLIOGRAFIA ............................................................................................ Pág. 77

Actualmente, debido al apoyo brindado por el estado a través de facilidades de

Suponiendo que el camino escogido por las empresas es el segundo, y motivados

El indicador escogido presenta dos características fundamentales:

El término productividad, según Koontzii, se define como la relación producto –

La segunda característica es que el indicador que se presenta no nos brinda la

Según un documento publicado por Sergio Maturana, Luis Alarcón y Mladen

El IP se considera útil, básicamente por los siguientes motivos:

• Permite hacer un diagnóstico de la situación actual de la construcción en Lima,

• Contribuye a establecer una comparación entre los resultados obtenidos hace

• Sirve como punto de comparación para investigaciones futuras.

• Permite identificar puntos débiles a reforzar a fin de no cometer los mismos

El alcance de la presente investigación está delimitado por los parámetros que se

- Enfoque del Estudio:

- Tolerancia del Estudio:

Nuestros objetivos son los siguientes:

1. Obtener un resultado representativo de la productividad a partir de un

2. Comparar la productividad actual con la obtenida en el estudio del 2000.

3. Reconocer la situación de la subcontratación en el Perú y comparar la

4. Reconocer la influencia del tipo de estructura en la productividad del proyecto y

De acuerdo a nuestros objetivos, nos planteamos las siguientes hipótesis:

1. Nuestra productividad ha mejorado con respecto a hace cinco años.

2. El tipo de estructura influye en la productividad, siendo la más productiva

3. El grado de integración de los subcontratos influye en la productividad, siendo

ii. ESTADO DEL ARTE

El modo de construcción tradicional presenta varios paradigmas que limitan las

2. ESTUDIO DE TIEMPOS Y MOVIMIENTOS

El estudio del trabajo es el examen sistemático de los métodos para realizar

El estudio del trabajo comprende varias técnicas, y en especial el estudio de

2.1. Estudio de métodos

También conocido como estudio de movimientos, es el registro y examen crítico

2.2. Medición del trabajo

O estudio de tiempos, es la aplicación de técnicas para determinar el tiempo que

En un principio, se plantea que el trabajo en sí consta de dos partes. La primera

“Lean Production” es una filosofía de la industria manufacturera que puede

Fue desarrollada en la compañía japonesa Toyota, por el ingeniero Taichi Ohnoi a

Orientados a alcanzar estos objetivos, la filosofía de Lean Production plantea

“El Lean Production está orientado al diseño de un sistema de producción que

En resumen, el Lean Production busca:

- Perfeccionar el producto y crear un flujo de trabajo confiable, a través de la

3.1. Lean Construction

“Lean Construction” o “Construcción Sin Pérdidas” es una filosofía de gestión

Según el Lean Construction Institutev (LCI), Lean Construction se extiende

La teoría y método del Lean Construction tienen su base en dos propuestas. La